- Com. 356 Case Saillofest/Région Alpes Partial Annulment Appeals nos. 72-14.359, 72-14.408 and 72-14.523
- 10 December 1973
- Translated by:
- Mr. Trevor Brown and Miss Ann Yazikov
- Professor B. S. Markesinis
Having considered Articles 1832 and 1855 of the Civil Code
Whereas, according to the findings of the judgement of annulment under appeal, Saillofest, a contractor, having built 11 chalets for an exhibition organised on the first floor of the Eiffel Tower, and claiming that it had contracted with a de facto company existing between Région Alpes 2000 (the Region), a corporation now in liquidation, and Chastagnol, Grama and the Société dExploitation et de Services des Restaurants de la Tour Eiffel (S.O.S.E.R.), claimed from the latter, which it considers joint and several debtor in respect of the works, payment of the outstanding balance and interest;
Whereas in order to admit this claim the judgement finds that (1) the exhibition, which was a publicity campaign, was conceived from the beginning, with the participation of the Region, which took on the cost of the chalets, by S.O.S.E.R., which made available to the Region its catering businesses and the platform of the first floor of the Eiffel Tower, and Chastagnol, who took the title of general organiser; (2) the latter in fact assumed this role, which publicly gave him the prime responsibility for the entire operation; (3) as far as the public and third parties were concerned his information centre was under the patronage of both the Region and the Guide to French Leisure and Mountains, of which, in the publicity brochure, he claimed to be the director; (4) Grama also appears in this brochure as one of the persons who animate and present the Centre of Information for French Mountains and himself recognised his role as organiser in the draft agreement of 27 February 1970 which he signed with Saillofest and the manager of the Region; (5) the various areas involved in the publicity operation are set out, in the same way as the chalets, at the head of this brochure, edited by the press service of S.O.S.E.R., under the titles: skating rink, restaurant, café-concert, planning regulations in the mountains; (6) despite the failure by the parties to produce accounts of the operation, it is evident that its realisation necessitated expenses and produced receipts and because of the publicity the parties were likely, in one way or another, and sooner or later, to earn profits; (7) the judgement finds that there is thus established the existence of the de facto company as claimed by Saillofest, which was crated for the publicity operation set out above, and from which each of the four participants expected to earn profits;
But whereas (1) there is no evidence from any of these findings and interpretations of a clear intention on the part of Chassagnol, Grama and S.O.S.E.R. to share in common with the Region the property and activities set out in the judgement, to expect profit from a joint enterprise whose results were to be shared, and, in case of a deficit, to contribute to the losses; (2) by finding as it did, the court of appeal did not give legal basis to its decision;
FOR THESE REASONS
ANNULS but only .
This page last updated Thursday, 15-Dec-2005 09:05:51 CST. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.