Focus on case law on sales, real estate agent mandate, co-ownership, obligation to provide decent housing.
Consult the newsletter n° 5
I. SALE
Civ I, June 25, 2014, n°13-16.529 :
By unilateral deed under private signature, an undivided owner “ declared to sell ” to his brother, the undivided half of buildings that they collected from their father's estate.
The owner died on leaving his two children to his estate. Difficulties arose between them as to the fate of the disputed property, the brother of the deceased owner claiming to be the sole owner of it for having acquired his brother's undivided share. In a first judgment, the Court of Appeal said that this deed constituted an offer to sell which had not been accepted before the death of the owner. The Court of Cassation confirms the decision of the Court of Appeal and recalls a classic solution, namely, that " the offer which is not accompanied by a deadline is null and void by the death of the person from whom it emanates before it has been accepted ”.
II. REAL ESTATE AGENT MANDATE
Civ I, June 18, 2014, n°13-13.553 :
In execution of a non-exclusive search mandate received from a company, a real estate agent had sought, discovered and presented to his principal a building plot in accordance with the agreed characteristics, then drafted a bill of sale which was not followed up.
The real estate agent then learned that another Fonta company had acquired this land, without an intermediary, at the price and conditions of the project it had drawn up. The real estate agent then sued the purchaser for payment of his search and negotiation services, relying mainly on an independent agreement for the purchaser to take over the principal's commitments, and, alternatively, on the action of reverse verso. In the absence of evidence, the Court of Appeal ruled out the existence of an agreement to take over the principal's commitments.
The court condemned the purchaser on the basis of the in rem verso action. In support of its decision, it retains that the exercise of this action, the only legal means available to the real estate agent to obtain remuneration from the purchaser for his work, is not intended to circumvent the provisions of the Law No. 70-9 of January 2, 1970 since the parties could not be bound by a mandate, the benefit that the purchaser derived free of charge from the work of the real estate agent having been transmitted to him by a third party. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and specified that, " the rules of unjust enrichment cannot hold in check the provisions of public order [of articles 6 I of law n° 70-9 of January 2, 1970 and 72 of Decree No. 72-678 of July 20, 1972], which make the legality of the intervention of a real estate agent in any real estate transaction, and therefore, his right to remuneration and compensation, subject to the holding of a mandate written document previously issued for this purpose by one of the parties to the operation ”.
III. CO-OWNERSHIP
Civ III, June 4, 2014 (n°13-15.400) :
The owners of lots for commercial use in a building subject to the status of co-ownership, sued the syndicate of co-owners, on the one hand, for nullity of a decision of the general meeting having refused that they proceed with the installation of a flue gas extraction duct in the courtyard of the building and, on the other hand, with judicial authorization for this work.
The Court of Appeal authorizes the co-owners to carry out work at their expense according to a modified version of the work plan. The syndicate of co-owners lodges an appeal in cassation on the grounds that the condition relating to the refusal, prior to the referral to the judge, of the general meeting is only fulfilled if the works submitted to the general meeting and having been the subject of a refusal are identical to those submitted to the judge. The question then arises as to whether the works authorized by the judge on the basis of article 30 of the law of July 10, 1965 must be identical to those refused by the general meeting.
According to the Court of Cassation, article 30, paragraph 4, of the law of July 10, 1965 does not require that the work subject to judicial authorization be strictly identical to that which the general meeting has not authorized. In addition, the assessment of the trial judge is made in a sovereign manner.
IV. OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DECENT HOUSING
Civ III, June 4, 2014, n°13-17.289 :
A housing rental agreement provides for a reduction in rent in return for the absence of heating.
The tenant of the dwelling belonging has summoned the lessor company in order to obtain its order to set up a heating installation. Is the obligation to provide decent housing respected if the housing is not equipped with heating?
According to the Court of Cassation, “ the obligation for the lessor to provide decent housing ” is of public order. Also, the Court of Appeal, was not required to take into account " the stipulations of the lease providing for the delivery of a dwelling without a heating appliance in return for a reduced rent, rightly condemned the lessor to put install a heating system .
It is recalled that the consequences that may be attached to the qualification of indecent housing are as follows:
– the termination of the lease with possibly a reduced notice;
– the reduction or waiver of rent until the work is completed;
– the granting of damages, in particular for disturbances of enjoyment caused by the works which should have been prior to the tenant's entry into the premises.
