Warranty Agreement En Francais
Asked whether the counter-judgment of the Metz Court of Appeal would be decided, the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of France) upheld such a judgment, finding that «in the exercise of its power to assess the will of the parties made necessary by the indeterminacy of the agreement, the Court of Appeal ruled that in the absence of a sanction for non-compliance with the required timetable. the failure to carry out the buyer`s obligation to inform the seller, within the prescribed time, of claims, facts or events likely to trigger the application of the guarantee within the prescribed time frame alone was not sufficient to remove the benefit of the guarantee and could only be in reparation for the harm that the delay in notifying the seller of the claim could have caused.» On February 11, 2013, spouses A appealed this judgment and argued that the guarantee had been exhausted because Company B had not disclosed the claim within the prescribed time frame. The Metz Court of Appeal found that, although Company B did not terminate the debt within the 20-day time limit, the agreement did not provide for an express penalty for non-compliance with the notice period, it did not recognize the forfeiture of the guarantee and replaced it with the payment of a lump sum payment. , as stipulated in Article 1142 of the French Civil Code, provided that the A spouses can prove that the delay in the notification of the debt caused them a loss. The warranty recovery tool determines the Cisco warranty currently applicable to a product identifier or product family. Follow the link and enter your Cisco Product ID (PID). On January 19, 2007, The A-spouses sold to Company B all the shares they held in Company C, which itself held almost all of the shares comprising the capital of Company D, and entered into a guarantee agreement with Company B providing that Company B, as a form of price reduction, and against any losses it held in connection with any additional or excessive liabilities , facts before the sale. This agreement provided, among other things, that all claims, facts or events likely to trigger the application of the guarantee must be notified to the A spouses of Company B within a maximum of twenty days from the date on which Company B will be aware of this right, fact or event. Throughout the execution of this guarantee agreement, disputes broke out and Companies B and C then called the A-spouses to appear before the Metz court and asked the court to order the A-spouses to compensate them for debts incurred after the sale.