About a ruling of the Supreme Court dated June 22, 2010 (Comm. June 22, 2010, FS-P + B + I, No. 09-67814)
Article L.341- 4 of the Consumer Code, resulting from Law No. 2003-721 of 1 August 2003 relating to economic initiative, prohibits the creditor professionals rely on a guarantee contract entered into by an individual whose commitment was At its conclusion, clearly disproportionate to his assets and income.
the text reserves in the assumption that the bond would have, when it is called, allowing a wealth of to meet its obligation.
In this case, the creditor alleged that the appellate court to have allocated to the company manager, surety company, a compensation equal to the sum he had not explained the importance of the disproportionate commitment.
The Supreme Court said that the law applies when the bond is a natural person.
officer who stood surety for the debts of his company benefits from this legal protection (Comm. April 13, 2010, No. 09-66309).
The Court of Cassation stated that the penalty of the bond clearly disproportionate consisting in the inability of the creditor from availing himself of the commitment is not to repair the injury and did not appreciate the extent of the disproportion.
Once the judge finds the manifestly disproportionate bail, he must reject the request of the creditor.
This solution applies to acts of bonds subscribed as of August 5, 2003, the date of entry into force of the law of 1 August 2003 (Cass.Ch.mixte, September 22, 2006, No. 05-13 517) .
acts undertaken previously, except those already submitted to the Consumer Code, under the old law penalizing excessive bail by the award of damages.
Yann Gallon - Lawyer (assisted by Marie-Laure Lanthir, student Lawyer)
Article L.341- 4 of the Consumer Code, resulting from Law No. 2003-721 of 1 August 2003 relating to economic initiative, prohibits the creditor professionals rely on a guarantee contract entered into by an individual whose commitment was At its conclusion, clearly disproportionate to his assets and income.
the text reserves in the assumption that the bond would have, when it is called, allowing a wealth of to meet its obligation.
In this case, the creditor alleged that the appellate court to have allocated to the company manager, surety company, a compensation equal to the sum he had not explained the importance of the disproportionate commitment.
The Supreme Court said that the law applies when the bond is a natural person.
officer who stood surety for the debts of his company benefits from this legal protection (Comm. April 13, 2010, No. 09-66309).
The Court of Cassation stated that the penalty of the bond clearly disproportionate consisting in the inability of the creditor from availing himself of the commitment is not to repair the injury and did not appreciate the extent of the disproportion.
Once the judge finds the manifestly disproportionate bail, he must reject the request of the creditor.
This solution applies to acts of bonds subscribed as of August 5, 2003, the date of entry into force of the law of 1 August 2003 (Cass.Ch.mixte, September 22, 2006, No. 05-13 517) .
acts undertaken previously, except those already submitted to the Consumer Code, under the old law penalizing excessive bail by the award of damages.
Yann Gallon - Lawyer (assisted by Marie-Laure Lanthir, student Lawyer)
0 comments:
Post a Comment