Given that on 30 January 1992 Mme Fulcrand, a nurse, signed a contract in the following terms: “I, the undersigned, nurse and midwife, declare that I am selling half of my patients to Mme Da Silva, also a nurse”, and on 13 March 1992 wrote in a second document “The undersigned declares that she has received from Mme Da Silva the sum of 100,000 francs as payment for her right to treat my patients. Each of us will devote half her time to treating the patients. Each will have her own surgery, use her own equipment and run her own accounts: no joint accounts will be kept. Any new patient of either will be treated as the patient of both. Either party may terminate their participation without notice on transferring her half of the patients treated”;

Given that Mme Da Silva sued Mme Fulcrand for a declaration that the contract of 30 January 1992 was void and the return of the 100,000 francs;

Given that after stating correctly that a medical practitioner’s list of patients is personal and thus nontransferable, save that it is permissible to introduce a successor or associate and to contract to do so, subject to the right of each patient to dissent, the court below, in granting the claim by Mme Da Silva (Montpellier, 11 June 1997), held that in view of the terms of the contract by which she transferred her list of patients Mme Fulcrand had failed to show that anything undertaken by her enabled it to be treated as a contract which gave her the right to present an associate;

Given that the court of appeal thus justified its decision in law and did not violate the texts cited in the application for review;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Subsequent Developments

Civ. 1, 19/10/1999, pourvoi n° 97-17-872 : This long-standing doctrine, which maintained that the practice of learned professions, such as the medical profession and others, was outside the scope of business, was abandoned by the above judgement of 7 November 2000 (civ.1, bull. No 283).