Business Contracts

Initially, the Court of Cassation considered that the acquisition of a property, in the knowledge of a promise of sale previously granted on the same property to another person, did not allow the purchaser to invoke the rules of land registration, so that the sale was not enforceable against the beneficiary of the bilateral promise . The Court of Cassation justified its position on the grounds of  …

Enforcability of the promise

Initially, the Court of Cassation considered that the acquisition of a property, in the knowledge of a promise of sale previously granted on the same property to another person, did not allow the purchaser to invoke the rules of land registration, so that the sale was not enforceable against the beneficiary of the bilateral promise . The Court of Cassation justified its position on the grounds of bad faith or fraud on the part of the second buyer. Thus, when the sale of an immovable property had been executed in fraud of the rights of the beneficiary of a bilateral promise of sale previously entered into, the rules governing land registration, which make the sale enforceable against third parties, should be disregarded, and the beneficiary's action for annulment of the disputed sale and enforcement of the promise  upheld.

Subsequently, the Court of Cassation overturned this precedent. Under Article 30-1 of the Decree of 4 January 1955, deeds and judgments subject to registration under Article 28(1) of the Decree may not be enforced against third parties who have acquired competing rights to the same property from the same party, unless they have been publicly registered, This means that an unreported bilateral promise of sale cannot be enforced against a second purchaser of the same property who has had his title deed recorded, even if he was aware of it . The Court reiterated this solution, stating that the bad faith of the purchaser of a property which had been the subject of an earlier, non-registered bilateral promise of sale, and as such unenforceable against the latter, has no influence on the validity of the registered deed of sale .

Cass. 3e civ, 30 January 1974, LawLex202200000150JBJ, overturning an appeal ruling which had rejected the claims of the beneficiary of a promise of sale for specific performance and payment of damages, on the grounds that, in the absence of fraudulent maneuvers, there is no reason to stop at a simple question of good or bad faith, and that the purchaser, despite having knowledge of the promise, committed no fault in having his title recorded first and taking advantage of a benefit offered by the law itself to the most diligent purchaser.

Cass. 3e civ, 10 November 1982, LawLex202300003174JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ. 10 February 2010, LawLex202200000148JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ, 19 June 2012, LawLex202200002570JBJ.

Business Contracts

98. Enforcability of the promise

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

98. Enforcability of the promise

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise