1. Real estate agent – Register of mandates
2. The seller: holder of the action for nullity of the acceptance of the offer of sale
3. The mere presence of asbestos is not a latent defect
4. Commercial lease – Deadline for the right of option
5. Request for cancellation of an act amending the descriptive statement of division and the rules of co-ownership
6. Basis of the liability of the syndicate of co-owners
1. Real estate agent – Register of
1st Civ mandates.
December 10, 2014 (n°13-24.352) F-PB: The use of two separate registers, one for sales mandates and the other for search mandates, does not comply with article 72 of decree no. 72-678 of July 20, 1972, under which mandates must appear in a single register.
Failure to comply with this provision is sanctioned by the nullity of the mandate.
2. The seller: holder of the action for nullity of the acceptance of the
1st Civ offer of sale.
January 15, 2015 (n°14-11.019) FS-PB: A leave to sell is issued to a tenant.
A promise to sell is then granted at a more advantageous price to two prospective buyers. In accordance with the provisions of article 15 II of the law n°89-462 of July 6, 1989, the notary notifies a second offer of sale to the tenant who accepts. While the deadline for completion of the sale was prescribed, the notary instruments the sale for the benefit of the tenant. Prospective buyers who consider themselves victims of fraud in their rights summon the notary in particular to obtain payment of damages.
In support of their claim, they invoke the nullity of right of the non-acceptance of the offer to sell as provided for by article 15 II paragraph 5 of the law of 1989. The Cour de cassation and the cour d appeal consider that only the lessor can invoke the nullity of the acceptance of the offer of sale enacted by article 15 II paragraph 5 of the law of 1989. Consequently, by instrumenting the deed of sale required by the lessor the notary has not breached any of his professional obligations towards the prospective buyers.
3. The mere presence of asbestos is not a
3rd Civ latent defect.
December 16, 2014 (n°13-17.469) FD: In this case, the Court of Cassation recalls that the seller is only required to carry out and give to the buyers a diagnosis intended for the search for asbestos inside the building.
The Court then specifies that the mere presence of asbestos, without danger, in materials in good condition does not make the building unfit for its intended purpose and is not considered as a latent defect giving rise to the right to redhibitory action. or estimate.
4. Commercial lease – Deadline for exercising the
3rd Civ.
January 14, 2015 (n°13-23.490) FS-PBI: The decision fixing the price of the renewed lease is notified to the lessee on December 16, 2008. On February 13, 2009, the lessee notifies the lessor of the exercise of his right of option .
The question then arises of knowing within what period the right of option can be exercised. The Court of Cassation recalls on the one hand that the notification of the decision of first instance fixing the rent causes both the option period and the appeal period to run.
It also specifies that the Commercial Code does not provide for the double meaning of the decision fixing the amount of the rent for the renewed lease for the exercise of the right of option. Consequently, the exercise by the lessee company of its option right on February 13, 2009 is late. 5. Request for cancellation of an act amending the descriptive state of division and the rules of co-ownership
3rd Civ.
December 17, 2014 (n°13-23.350) FS-PB: Co-owners request the reinstatement of lots in the common parts of the building, the cancellation of the composition of one of the lots in the initial descriptive state as well as the cancellation of the modified descriptive statement of division.
The request is declared inadmissible by the trial judges. The Court of Cassation confirms this decision.
Indeed, according to the Court of Cassation, these requests, tending to pronounce the cancellation of real estate deeds or rights resulting from deeds published in the mortgage office are inadmissible for lack of publication of the assignments in the land registry. 6. Basis of liability of the syndicate of co-owners
3rd Civ.
January 14, 2015 (n°13-28.030) FS-PBI: A syndicate of co-owners is ordered to guarantee one of the co-owners, lessor of the judgments pronounced against him tending, to repair the damage caused by the carrying out of work in the parts municipalities, having forced the lessee of commercial premises to interrupt its operation for several months.
According to the Court of Appeal, insofar as the lessor does not seek compensation for himself, the liability of the syndicate is based on article 1384 of the Civil Code and not on article 9 paragraph 4, of the law of July 10, 1965 under which the co-owner who suffers damage due to the execution of works of collective interest is entitled to compensation.
The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the grounds that the lessor was seeking compensation for personal damage resulting from his obligation to repair the problems suffered by his tenant, and that, with regard to work carried out by the syndicate and affecting its parties private, only the provisions of article 9, paragraph 4, of the law of July 10, 1965 were to apply.
