Focus on case law concerning sales, real estate agent mandates, co-ownership, and the obligation to provide decent housing.
See newsletter no. 5
I. SALE
Civ I, June 25, 2014, No. 13-16.529 :
By a unilateral private agreement, a joint owner " declared his intention to sell " to his brother his undivided half share of real estate they had inherited from their father. The owner died on [date missing], leaving his two children as his heirs. Disputes arose between them regarding the ownership of the disputed property, with the deceased owner's brother claiming to be the sole owner, having acquired his brother's undivided share. In its initial ruling, the Court of Appeal held that this agreement constituted an offer to sell that had not been accepted before the owner's death.
The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal's decision and reiterated a well-established principle: " an offer that does not specify a time limit lapses upon the death of the offeror before it has been accepted ."
II. REAL ESTATE AGENT MANDATE
Civ I, June 18, 2014, No. 13-13.553 :
Pursuant to a non-exclusive search mandate received from a company, a real estate agent searched for, found, and presented to his client a building plot conforming to the agreed specifications, and then drafted a preliminary sales agreement, which was not acted upon. The real estate agent subsequently learned that another company, Fonta, had acquired this plot, without an intermediary, at the price and under the conditions of the draft agreement it had drawn up. The real estate agent then sued the purchaser for payment of his search and negotiation services, relying primarily on an independent agreement for the purchaser to assume the principal's obligations, and secondarily on the action for unjust enrichment (in rem verso).
Lacking evidence, the Court of Appeal dismissed the existence of an agreement for the assumption of the principal's obligations. The court ordered the purchaser to pay damages based on the action for unjust enrichment (in rem verso). In support of its decision, it maintains that the exercise of this action, the only legal means available to the real estate agent to obtain payment for his work from the buyer, is not intended to circumvent the provisions of Law No. 70-9 of January 2, 1970, since the parties could not be bound by a mandate, the benefit that the buyer 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 quashes the judgment and specifies that, " the rules of unjust enrichment cannot override the public policy provisions [of articles 6 I of law no. 70-9 of 2 January 1970 and 72 of decree no. 72-678 of 20 July 1972], which make the legality of the intervention of a real estate agent in any real estate transaction, and therefore, his right to remuneration as well as compensation, conditional upon the possession of a written mandate previously issued for this purpose by one of the parties to the transaction ."
III. CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP
Third Civil Chamber, June 4, 2014 (No. 13-15.400) :
The owners of commercial units in a building subject to condominium ownership brought an action against the condominium association, firstly, seeking to have a general meeting's decision refusing their request to install a flue gas extraction duct in the building's courtyard declared null and void, and secondly, seeking judicial authorization for the work. The Court of Appeal authorized the co-owners to carry out the work at their own expense according to a modified version of the proposed work. The condominium association appealed to the Court of Cassation on the grounds that the requirement of a prior refusal by the general meeting before bringing the matter before a judge is not met if the work submitted to the general meeting and rejected is identical to that submitted to the judge.
The question then arises as to whether the work authorized by the judge under Article 30 of the Law of July 10, 1965, must be identical to that rejected 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 rejected by the general meeting. Furthermore, the lower court judge's assessment is final.
IV. OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE DECENT HOUSING
Civ III, June 4, 2014, No. 13-17.289 :
A residential lease agreement stipulated a rent reduction in exchange for the absence of heating. The tenant of the property sued the landlord company to obtain a court order compelling it to install a heating system.
Is the obligation to provide decent housing met if the property is not equipped with heating?
According to the Court of Cassation, " the landlord's obligation to provide decent housing " is a matter of public policy. Therefore, the Court of Appeal was not required to consider " the lease stipulations providing for the delivery of a property without heating in exchange for a reduced rent, and rightly ordered the landlord to install a heating system ."
It should be noted that the consequences of classifying a property as substandard include:
– termination of the lease, possibly with a reduced notice period;
– rent reduction or exemption until the work is completed;
– the awarding of damages, in particular for the disruption of enjoyment caused by the work which should have been carried out prior to the tenant taking possession of the premises.
