Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Article 1108 et seq. and the Specification of the Consensual Doctrine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Construction, Sources, and Implications of Consensualism in Contract

Part of the book series: Studies in the History of Law and Justice ((SHLJ,volume 27))

  • 53 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deconstructs Article 1108 of the Civil Code of France to demonstrate the otherwise overlooked implications of consensualism in French contract law, thereby departing from its conventional opposition to formalism. It exposes the additional substantive requirements that consent must meet to produce legal effect in light of the doctrines of defect in consent and causa. It demonstrates that more than a mere procedural rule whereby every agreement arising from consent can be a contract, consensualism is more so a substantive rule establishing a normative system whereby the efficacy of consent depends on the respect of moral, sociolegal, socioeconomic, and socio-political norms. These aims continue to be supported by the doctrine of causation whose removal from French contract law following the reform of the French law of obligations in 2016 is more apparent than real.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    French Civil Code, ex-Article 1108. [My own translation]: ‘1° The consent of the party who obliges themselves; 2° That party’s capacity to contract; 3° A definite object that forms the subject-matter of the obligation; 4° A lawful cause for the obligation’. Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1128 (current): ‘Sont nécessaires à la validité d’un contrat: 1° Le consentement des parties; 2° Leur capacité de contracter; 3° Un contenu licite et certain’. [My own translation]: ‘The following are required for the validity of a contract: 1° The consent of the parties; 2° Their capacity to contract; 3° A lawful and certain content’.

  2. 2.

    French Civil Code, ex-Articles 1109-1122 contra French Civil Code, Articles 1129-1144 (current) on consent; French Civil Code, ex-Articles 1123-1125-1 contra French Civil Code, Articles 1145-1161 on capacity; French Civil Code, ex-Articles 1126-1130 contra French Civil Code, Articles 1162-1171 (current) on the object (i.e., content) of the contract; French Civil Code, ex-Articles 1131-1133 contra French Civil Code, Article 1163 (current) on cause.

  3. 3.

    French Civil Code, ex-Article 1109. [My own translation]: ‘There is no valid consent if consent was given only by error, or if it was obtained by violence or induced by dol’. Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1130 (current): L’erreur, le dol et la violence vicient le consentement lorsqu’ils sont de telle nature que, sans eux, l’une des parties n’aurait pas contracté ou aurait contracté à des conditions substantiellement différentes. Leur caractère déterminant s’apprécie eu égard aux personnes et aux circonstances dans lesquelles le consentement a été donné’.[My own translation]: ‘Mistake, fraud, and duress vitiate consent where they are of such a nature that, without them, one of the parties would not have contracted or would have contracted on substantially different terms’.

  4. 4.

    French Civil Code, ex-Article 1131. [My own translation]: ‘An obligation without a cause, with a false cause, or with an unlawful cause is null and void’.

  5. 5.

    Terré et al. (2002) at [129]: ‘Le consensualisme apparaît comme une conquête de la bonne foi’.

  6. 6.

    [Emphasis added][My own translation]: ‘Agreements lawfully entered into have the force of law for those who have made them. They may only be revoked by the mutual consent of the parties, or for the causes allowed by law. They must be performed in good faith’. Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1103 (current): ‘Les contrats légalement formés tiennent lieu de loi à ceux qui les ont faits’; French Civil Code, Article 1193 (current): ‘Les contrats ne peuvent être modifiés ou révoqués que du consentement mutuel des parties, ou pour les causes que la loi autorise’; French Civil Code, Article 1104 (current): ‘Les contrats doivent être négociés, formés et exécutés de bonne foi. Cette disposition est d’ordre public’.

  7. 7.

    [Emphasis added][My own translation]: ‘Agreements bind the parties not only as to what is therein expressed, but also as to all the consequences that equity, usage, or law impose upon the obligation according to its nature’. Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1194 (current): ‘Les contrats obligent non seulement à ce qui y est exprimé, mais encore à toutes les suites que leur donnent l’équité, l’usage ou la loi’.

  8. 8.

    See, for instance, Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 14 September 2005: Bull. Civ. III, n°166; D.2006. 761, note D. Mazeaud; JCP 2005. II.10173, note Loiseau; JCP E 2005. 1867, note Binctin; Defrénois 2005, 19122. Noote Dagorne-Labbe; ibid, 2006. 248, note Techendjou; CCC 2006, n°1, note Leveneur; LPA, 1st December 2005, note Messai-Bahri, RDC 2006. 811, obs. Viney; RTD cv. 2005. 776, obs. Mestre et Fage; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 18 May 2011; Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 7 May 2008: Bull. Civ. V, n°99; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 26 November 1996: Bull. Civ. I, n°415; Cour de cassation, Assemblée Plénière, 1 December 1995: Bull. Civ. N°7 (2 arrêts); ibid, n°8; R, p. 290, GAJC, 11 éd, n°151-154; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 3 November 1992: JCP 1993. II.27164, note Virassamy, Defrénois 1993. 1377, obs. Aubert; RTD Civ. 1993. 124, obs. Mestre.

  9. 9.

    French Civil Code, ex-Article 1117: ‘La convention contractée par erreur, violence ou dol, n'est point nulle de plein droit ; elle donne seulement lieu à une action en nullité ou en rescision, dans les cas et de la manière expliqués à la section VII du chapitre V du présent titre’.

  10. 10.

    [My own translation]: ‘Consent must be free; if the consent of any of the parties was extorted by violence, the contract is vitiated; albeit consent extorted by duress is a form of consent consisting with the adage voluntas, coacta est voluntas…it cannot be said, as in the case of error, that there has not been any contract at all; there is one, but it is vitiated and the party whose consent has been extorted by duress, or their heirs or assignees can request its rescission and obtain, to this effect, rescission orders’.

  11. 11.

    I submit that unless the error is substantive (e.g., A thought he agreed to buy a Rolls Royce Phantom VIII from B when B believed he agreed only to sell a Rolls Royce Phantom VIII figurine to A) it is impromper to argue that there is absolutely no consent when consent was given by any other form of excusable or material mistake. The reason is that in all other instances of mistake, the parties agreed into the same subject-matter and object of performance but would only have incorporated substantially different terms had something been known to one or each of them. Compare to Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 1, 22 February 1978, 76-11.551 (Affaire Poussin); Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 27 February 2007, 02-13.420 03-21.179; Cour d'appel de Versailles, 12 January 2000, 1998-2334. It is consistent with the newly incorporated Article 1132 of the Civil Code of France.

  12. 12.

    Colin et al. (1935) at [35].

  13. 13.

    Terré et al. (2002) at [129]: ‘Le consensualisme apparaît comme une conquête de la bonne foi’.

  14. 14.

    [My own translation]: ‘An obligation without a cause, with a false cause, or with an unlawful cause is null and void’. Contra French Civil Code, Article 1162 (current).

  15. 15.

    [My own translation]: ‘The agreement of the parties is nevertheless valid, although the cause is not expressed’. This article has no equivalent in the Civil Code since the reform of 2016.

  16. 16.

    [My own translation]: ‘The cause of the obligation is unlawful when it is prohibited by law, and when it is contrary to social mores or public order’. Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1162 (current).

  17. 17.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1101 (current).

  18. 18.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1106, °1 (current).

  19. 19.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1106, °2 (current).

  20. 20.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1108 (current).

  21. 21.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1107, °1 (current).

  22. 22.

    Compare to French Civil Code, Article 1107, °2 (current).

  23. 23.

    Chappell v Nestlés [1960] AC 87; Boots Co Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 609.

  24. 24.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 19 February 1991, n°89-18498 (a contrario). [My own translation]: ‘The decision appealed against highlights that the grantor agreed on the transfer of shares freely and the contract did not incorporate any term for the reconsideration of their price for any reason. Consequently, Mr X…expressly waived any claim for price adaptation. Given that the terms of the contract did not provide for any reimbursement for sums owed to Mr X…caused by the operational running of the activities of the cooperative prior to 31 December 1979, that the balance sheets of the cooperative showed a shortfall so huge that, even accounting for the sums claimed by Mr X…, the balance sheet would have still shown a shortfall so big that it would not have been possible to assign any value to the shares transferred other than a symbolic one, the claimant’s claim for unjust enrichment cannot be sustained’.

  25. 25.

    Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 2 April 1993: Bull. Civ. N°9, R., p 326; GAJC, 11e éd., n°226; D. 1993. 373, concl. Jéol; D. 1993. Somm. 273., obs. Prétot; D. 1994, Somm. 14, obs. Aubert; JCP 1993. II.22051, cincl. Jéol; Gaz. Pal. 1993.2.560, concl. Jéol; RTD Civ. 1993. 820, obs. Mestre, Sériaux, D. 1993. Chron. 229. [My own translation]: ‘Since the monies paid were not due, solvens was entitled to restitution without a need to prove it’. See also Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 20 January 1998: Bull. Civ. I, n°18; D. 1999. 500, note D. R. Martin (1re esp.); JCP 1999. I. 137, n°7, obs. Rullmann contra Digest, 12.6.14; Digest, 16.2.10.1; Digest, 50.17.206; and French Civil Code, Article 1302-2 (current).

  26. 26.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 25 January 1965: Gaz. Pal. 1965. 1. 198; French Civil Code, Article 1303 (current). [My own translation]: ‘The action of in rem verso (i.e., unjust enrichment) can be sustained from the moment that the party who relies on it contends that they have procured an undue advantage to the defendant’.

  27. 27.

    Capitant (1927) §6, °2, p. 28. [My own translation]: ‘An obligation is only valid to the extent that its goal is, on the one hand, likely to be reached and, on the other, lawful; that is, that its goal is neither proscribed by law nor contrary to public order or good mores’.

  28. 28.

    Capitant (1927) pp. 28–29. [My own translation]: ‘The obligation can only be sustained provided it relies on a cause. In this regard, the cause of the obligation is distinct from the other requirements that the debtor of the obligation must fulfil for the contract to be valid; that is, the conveyance of consent and their capacity to contract’.

  29. 29.

    Capitant (1927), p. 113.

  30. 30.

    French Civil Code, Article 16-1: ‘Chacun a droit au respect de son corps. Le corps humain est inviolable. Le corps humain, ses éléments et ses produits ne peuvent faire l'objet d'un droit patrimonial’.

  31. 31.

    Villey (1962), pp. 23ff, 33; Aubry and Rau (1897–1923) n°578.

  32. 32.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 11 December 1900, DP 1901. 1. 257 – 30 mars 1943, DC 1944. 13, note L.P – Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 30 April 1947, JCP 1947. IV. 97. See also Paris, 3 March 1898; Paris, 23 July 1926, DH 1926. 568; Tribunal Civil de Marseille, 17 March 1927; Aix-en-Provence, 29 November 1927, JCP 1928. 11, 177; Chevallier (1933) at [257]; Najjar, I in Dalloz, Répertoire de droit civil (2020b online, last updated: 2011).

  33. 33.

    French Civil Code, Article 1168 (current): ‘Dans les contrats synallagmatiques, le défaut d’équivalence des prestations n’est pas une cause de nullité du contrat, à moins que la loi n’en dispose autrement’; French Civil Code, Article 1674: ‘Si le vendeur a été lésé de plus de sept douzièmes dans le prix d'un immeuble, il a le droit de demander la rescision de la vente, quand même il aurait expressément renoncé dans le contrat à la faculté de demander cette rescision, et qu'il aurait déclaré donner la plus-value’.

  34. 34.

    Wilmot-Smith (2013), pp. 414–436; Barnes v Eastenders [2014] UKSC 26, [2014] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 461; Jaffey (2003), pp. 284–293; Chappell v Nestlés [1960] AC 87; Boots Co Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 609.

  35. 35.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 15 June 1892, DP 92. 1. 596, S. 93. 1. 281, note Labbé; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 25 January 1965, Gaz. Pal. 1965 1 p. 198; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1 March 1989 Bull. civ. III, n° 49, p 29; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 26 August 1962, JCP 1983 II 19992, not Ph Terri; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 10 October 2000, D 2000 AJ, p 409, obs Avena-Robarde; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 June 1997, n°95-13.568; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 19 May 1998, n°96-16.393; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 19 January 1953, D 1953, p 234; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 15 June 1994, Bull. civ. I, n°215; Defrénois, 1994, p 1113, obs. P Delebecque; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 22 October 1996, D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux; D., 1997, chron., p 145, n°3, n. C Larroumet; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 18 July 2001, Bull. civ. n°101; D., 2002, p 680, n. C Castets; somm., p 390, obs. G Paisant; Defrénois, 2001, p 1421, obs. E Savaux; Contrats, conc., conso. 2001., n°171, n. L Leveneur; Droit et patrimoine, December 2001, p 98, obs. P Chauvel; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 28 September 2004, Bull. civ. IV, n°167; D., 2005, p 302, n. M-A Rakotovahini; JCP 2005.I.107, p 147, obs. M Cabrillac.

  36. 36.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 22 October 1996, Bull. civ. IV, n°261, GAJC, 11th ed., n°156; D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux; somm., p 175, obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 1997, p 333, obs. D Mazeaud; JCP 1997.II.22881, n. D Cohen; I.4002, n°1, obs. M Fabre-Magnan; I.4027, n°17, n. G Viney; Contrats, conc. Conso., 1997, n°24, obs. L Leveneur; Gaz. Pal., 1997.2.519, n. R Martin ; RTD Civ. 1997, p 418, obs. J Mestre; Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 April 2005, Bull. civ., n°231; Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 May 2005, Bull. civ., n°232.

  37. 37.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 9 July 2002, Chronopost II, n° 99-12554, Bulletin 2002 IV N° 121, p 129; Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 April 2005, Chronopost III, n° 03-14112, Bulletin 2005 Mixt. N° 4, p 10; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 30 May 2006, Chronopost IV, n° 04-14974, Bulletin 2006 IV N° 132, p 134; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 13 June 2006, Chronopost V, n°05-12619, Bulletin 2006 IV N° 143, p 152; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 13 February 2007, Faurecia I, n° 05-17407, Bulletin 2007, IV, N°43; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 29 June 2010, Faurecia II, n° 09-11841, Bulletin 2010, IV, n° 115.

  38. 38.

    Loi (Hamon) 2014-344 du 17-3-2014 relative à la consommation; Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance; Ordonnance 2016-301 du 14-3-2016 relative à la partie législative du Code de la consommation; Loi 2017-203 du 21-2-2017 ratifiant [notamment] l’ordonnance 2016-301 du 14-3-2016 relative à la partie législative du Code de la consommation; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 29 March 2017, n°16-10007 and n°15-26766.

  39. 39.

    Cour de cassation, 22 October 1996, Bull. civ. IV, n°261, GAJC, 11th ed., n°156; D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 15 February 2000, Bull. civ. IV, n°29; D., 2000, somm., p 364 obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 2000, p 1118, obs. D Mazeaud; Petites Affiches, 29 December 2000, p 12, n. G Meilhac-Redon and J Marmoz; RTD Civ., 2000, p 325, obs. J Mestre and B Fages; Houtcieff (2001) at [502] to [503]; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 19 December 1990, Bull. civ. I, n°303; R., p 372; JCP 1991.II.21656, n. J Bigot; RTD Civ., 1991, obs. J Mestre; Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 15 February 2000, Bull. civ. IV, n°29; D., 2000, somm., p 364 obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 2000, p 1118, obs. D Mazeaud; Petites Affiches, 29 December 2000, p 12, n. G Meilhac-Redon and J Marmoz; RTD Civ., 2000, p 325, obs. J Mestre and B Fages, D Mazeaud.

  40. 40.

    Contra French Civil Code, Articles 1103, 1104, and 1193 (current).

  41. 41.

    Contra French Civil Code, Article 1194 (current).

  42. 42.

    Bourgeois (1992), pp. 17ff; Douailler and Vermeren (1993), pp. 40ff; Azouvi (1993), pp. 46ff; Niort (1965) at [333] et seq, pp. 557–560.

  43. 43.

    Beaumanoir (de) (1842) 34.2, p. 2; Loysel (1679) §357; Domat (1828) Liv I, Tit I, Sec II, §1, p. 128; Pothier (2011) §3 et seq.; Carbonnier (2000) at [16].

  44. 44.

    Boyer (1947) at [103]; Ionasco (1931), pp. 29ff; Duguit (1927), p. 319; Josserand (1928) at [122] et seq., pp. 165, 158, and 169 contra Carbonnier (2000) at [64]; Capitant (1923) at [4], p. 11, [294] and [295]; Fenouillet (1996), pp. 27ff; Rampelberg (2003), pp. 19ff; Mazeaud (2003), pp. 81ff; Chauvel (1990), p. 93ff; Pimont (2004) at [135]; Terré (1956) at [274], [276] et seq.; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 12 July 1989, Bull. civ. I, n°293; GAJC, 11th edition, n°155; JCP 1990.II.21546, n. Y Dagorne-Labbé; Defrénois, 1990, p 358, obs. J-L Aubert; RTD Civ., 1990, p 468, obs. J Mestre; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 16 February 1999, Bull. civ. I, n°55; D. Affaires, 1999, p 514, obs. J F; Contrats. Conc. Consom., 1999, n°70, obs. L Leveneur.

  45. 45.

    Ripert (1949) at [35]; Maury (1912) in Répertoire Civil Dalloz, at [45]. See also Marty and Raynaud (1972) n°212, p. 21; Mazeaud, D in Collectif Paris II (2004), p. 458.

  46. 46.

    Capitant (1923), p. 244. [My own translation]: ‘Most court decisions emphasise that fact and rule that all parties are considered to have contributed to the fulfilment of an immoral and subjective goal [when by its terms or purpose, a contract derogates to public order]. The latter goal played a seminal role in the formation of the contract; it was necessarily incorporated in the contract as a factor determining the mutual expression of will of the parties. The expected economic goal underpinned the legal transaction. Separating them would be tantamount to having only a partial view of the will of the parties. [For example], when someone leases a building, or loans money to another, and that it is agreed between the parties that the contract purports to the establishment or purchase of a bawdy house, can it really be denied that the contracting parties both undertake an act that is contrary to good mores, and is not it getting the wrong end of the stick than to assimilate this operation to a regular leasing operation or loan? Again, the expected economic goal features the will of the parties and is so intricately linked to the legal purpose of the undertaking that it cannot be distinguished from it. It is to overlook the facts [surrounding the formation of the undertaking] to contend that in annulling the agreement, the courts sacrifice freedom of contract according to vague and inadequate rules of morality. It would be more regrettable to require from judges that they uphold and sanction such legal operations in spite of their justified repugnance. Such are, we think, the reasons that underpin the expansion of Article 1131 [to encompass and sanction] these hypotheses. It is justified because contracting parties can incorporate whatever consideration in their agreement. It becomes, ipso facto, a constitutive element of the contract. Notably, contracting parties can associate the fulfilment of a [reprehensible] mutual economic aim to the goal that their undertaking fulfils, that is the [final] cause of the obligation. When it is the case, this new element must be considered in the determination of the validity of the undertaking.

  47. 47.

    Carbonnier (2000) at [61]; Malaurie et al. (2004) at [618]; Fabre-Magnan (2004) at [140]; Maury (1920) pp. 35ff; Capitant (1923) at [3] and [4], pp. 7ff, 11ff, 12-13, 15ff, 30–31; Babert (2002) at [384]; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 4 December 1956, Bull. civ. I, n°439; JCP 1957.II.10008, note J Mazeaud, Bull. civ. I, n°439; JCP 1957.II.10008, note J Mazeaud.

  48. 48.

    Ripert (1949) at [36]; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 1 October 1996, Bull. civ. I, n°235; D., 1997, somm., p 171, obs. R Libchaber; Contrats, conc. Consom., 1997, p 3, obs. L Leveneur; RTD Civ., 1997, p 116, obs. J Mestre; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 7 October 1998, Bull. civ. I, n°285; GAJC, 11th ed., n°157; D., 1998, p 563, concl. J Sainte-Rose; D., 1999, somm., p 110, obs. P Delebecque; D., 1999, ‘L’influence du motif illicite ou immoral sur la validité du contrat’, chron., p 237, O Tournafond; D. Affaires, 1998, p 1772, obs. J F; Defrénois, 1998, p 1408, obs. D Mazeaud; 1999, p 602, obs. V Chariot; JCP 1998.II.10202, note M H Maleville ; JCP 1999.I.114, n°1, obs. C Jamin; Gaz. Pal. 2000.1.643, note F Chabas; Contrats, conc. Consom., 1999, n°1, obs. L Leveneur, Petites Affiches, 5 March 1999, note S Prieur; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 8 November 1982, Bull. civ. I, n°321; Paris, 1 April 1895, Gaz. Pal. 1895.2.158; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 19 November 1932, D., 1933.1.26; Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 1 April 1895, DP, 1895.1.263; Demogue (1923) at [773]; Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 4 January 1897, D. 1897.1.126; Report on Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 8 November 1982, Bull. civ. I, n°321 contra Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 February 1999, Bull. civ. I, n°43 and Cour de cassation, Assemblée Plénière, 29 October 2004, Bull. civ. A P., n°12. See also Hauser, J observation under Cour de cassation, Assemblée Plénière, 29 October 2004, RTD Civ., 2005, pp 104ff; Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 3 June 1969, D., 1970, p 136; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 23 April 1898, D., 1998.1.415; Paris, 19 April 1858, S., 1858.2.366; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile., 5 February 1902, S., 1902.1.389; DP, 1902.1.158; Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 1 May 1855, S., 1855.1.337; Liège, Tribunal, 14 November 1896. Compare to Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 11 Novembre 1890, S., 1891.1.319; DP, 1891.1.484; Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 8 January 1964, D. 1964.267.

  49. 49.

    Planiol (1931), pp. 396–397.

  50. 50.

    Planiol (1912), p. 1039.

  51. 51.

    Aristotle (1936) II.3.

  52. 52.

    Aristotle (1837) V.2.

  53. 53.

    Casu (2015).

  54. 54.

    Sénat (2019).

  55. 55.

    French Constitution, Article 38.

  56. 56.

    Loi n° 2018-287 du 20 avril 2018 ratifiant l'ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations.

  57. 57.

    Chirac (2004) Gaz. Pal., 25ff.

  58. 58.

    Chantepie and Latina (2016), p. 6.

  59. 59.

    Quiriny (2006), pp. 375–400.

  60. 60.

    See Table des articles 1100 à 1386-1 au JO du 11/02/2016 (ancienne / nouvelle référence).

  61. 61.

    Chantepie and Latina (2016) at [85] in fine.

  62. 62.

    Loi n° 2014-873 du 4 août 2014 pour l’égalité réelle entre les femmes et les hommes contra French Civil Code, ex-Article 1107 cited above; Kaigl (2017).

  63. 63.

    [My own translation]: ‘Four requirements are essential for the validity of an agreement:

    The consent of the party who obliges themselves; That party’s capacity to contract; A definite object that forms the subject-matter of the obligation; A lawful cause for the obligation’.

  64. 64.

    [My own translation]: ‘The following are required for the validity of a contract: 1° The consent of the parties; 2° Their capacity to contract; 3° A lawful and certain content’.

  65. 65.

    [My own translation]: ‘An obligation without a cause, with a false cause, or with an unlawful cause is null and void’.

  66. 66.

    [My own translation]: ‘The cause of the obligation is unlawful when it is prohibited by law, and when it is contrary to social mores or public order’.

  67. 67.

    [My own translation]: ‘A contract cannot derogate from public policy neither by its stipulations nor by its purpose, whether or not this was known by all the parties’.

  68. 68.

    Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 July 1996, pourvoi no 94-14800, Bull. Civ. I. n°286 p 200, D. 30 octobre 1997, n°38, p 500, note P. Reigne, Juris-Classeur périodique 96. IV. 1998, 97,I,4015, obs. Labarthe.

  69. 69.

    Walker (1995), p. 43.

  70. 70.

    Smith (1962) p. 32.

  71. 71.

    MacDouall (Lord Bankton) (1993–1995), p. 323. He argued that promises are engagements ‘by which one obliges himself to another, without any mutual obligation or valuable consideration’. Compare to Bell (2010), p. 4. See also Forbes (2012), p. 161.

  72. 72.

    MacDouall (Lord Bankton) (1993–1995), p. 325.

  73. 73.

    Dalrymple (Viscount of Stair) (1981), pp. 74, 91. See also Bankton, 1.1.10; Hume (1739) 3.2.1.17 contra Home (Lord Kames) (2006) Book 3, Sketch 8: ‘Liberty and necessity considered with respect to morality’; Home (Lord Kames) (2012) especially 24ff and 120ff. See also p 113: ‘Liberty and necessity considered with respect to morality’.

  74. 74.

    Dalrymple (Viscount of Stair) (1981), p. 91.

  75. 75.

    Same as above.

  76. 76.

    Mackenzie (1970–1979) 3.3.

  77. 77.

    Mackenzie (1970–1979), p. 203: ‘For, he who voluntarily and gratuitously promises to give any Thing, is thereby obliged to deliver the same’.

  78. 78.

    The Abbot of Kilwinning v Andro Auchinleck [1533] Mor 827.

  79. 79.

    Anon (1533) in Walker (1995), p. 704.

  80. 80.

    Mackenzie Stuart, AJ in Campbell and Paton (1958), p. 251.

  81. 81.

    Lord Hope of Craighall (1726) 2.1.3 and 2.2.6. Compare to Lundie in Craig 2.3.15.

  82. 82.

    Mackenzie Stuart, AJ in Campbell and Paton (1958), p. 251.

  83. 83.

    Forbes (2012), pp. 162ff, 163ff.

  84. 84.

    Balfour (Lord Pittendreich) (1962), p. 149.

  85. 85.

    Mackenzie Stuart, AJ in Campbell and Paton (1958), p. 251.

  86. 86.

    Bell (2010), p. 32.

  87. 87.

    Bell (2010), p. 31, 33 contra De la Bere v Pearson [1908] 1 KB 280; Chappell v Nestlés [1960] AC 87; North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705, White v Bluett [1853] 23 LJ Ex 3; Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; Blackstone (Sir) (1765), pp. 217ff; Stanhope Kenny (1922), pp. 121ff, 176ff; Domat (1828) Liv I, Tit I, Sec I, §5-6, pp. 122–124 and Sec V, §§13-14, p. 151; Pothier (2011) §3, p. 5; Villey (1962), p. 23ff, 33; Aubry and Rau (1897–1923) n°578.

  88. 88.

    Dalrymple (Viscount of Stair) (1981) at [169].

  89. 89.

    Kintore v Sinclair [1623] Mor 94252.

  90. 90.

    Drummond v Bisset [1551] Mor 12381; Sharp v Sharp (1631) Mor 4299.

  91. 91.

    Mackenzie 10, p. 252. Compare to Craw v Culbertson (1663) Mor 12384.

  92. 92.

    Deuchar v Brown (1672) Mor 9425.

  93. 93.

    The Laird of Clackmannan v Sir William Nisbet (1624) Spottiswoode 248.

  94. 94.

    Wood v Robertson (1672) Mor 12225.

  95. 95.

    Gosford’s report at [12388].

  96. 96.

    Stair 1.10.10.

  97. 97.

    Lundie v Douglas (1681) 2 Brown’s Supp 265; Bankton 1.11.9.

  98. 98.

    Erskine 3.1.16; Bell, GJ (2010) para 66; Erskine 3.3.88 and also 3.2.1. Compare to Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153.

  99. 99.

    Gloag (1914), pp. 58ff; McBryde (1987), pp. 7, 13ff; MacQueen and Thomson (2012), p. 39; Black (2011), pp. 97–119.

  100. 100.

    Wilmot-Smith (2013), pp. 414–436 contra Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd [2001] HCA 68, High Court, 2001) 208 CLR 516; Barnes v Eastenders [2014] UKSC 26, [2014] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 461; Shilliday v Smith 1998 S.C. 725; Watson & Co v Shankland (1871) 10 M. 142; Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding Co 1923 S.C. (H.L.) 105; Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York vs Lothian Regional Council 1995 SLT 299; Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1992 SC (HL) 104; MacQueen, H, The Right Hon Lord Eassie (2017), pp. 623ff; Bell (2010), pp. 206ff; Forbes (2012), p. 221ff. Compare to Barnes v Eastenders [2014] UKSC 26, [2014] Lloyd's Rep. F.C. 461, per Lord Toulson; Virgo (2015); Burrows (2011); Mitchell et al. (2011); Degeling and Edelman (2005); Rover International v Cannon [1989] 1 WLR 912 (failure of consideration must be total); Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping [1989] 1 WLR 574 (the defendant must not have commenced rendering performance). See also Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB).

  101. 101.

    Shilliday v Smith 1998 S.C. 725; Watson & Co v Shankland (1871) 10 M. 142; Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding Co 1923 S.C. (H.L.) 105; Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York vs Lothian Regional Council 1995 S.L.T. 299; Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1992 SC (HL) 104; MacQueen, H, The Right Hon Lord Eassie (2017), p. 623ff; Bell (2010), p. 206ff; Forbes (2012), p. 221ff contra Barnes v Eastenders [2014] UKSC 26, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 461, per Lord Toulson; Virgo (2015); Burrows (2011); Mitchell et al. (2011); Degeling and Edelman (2005). Rover International v Cannon [1989] 1 WLR 912 (failure of consideration must be total); Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping [1989] 1 WLR 574 (the defendant must not have commenced rendering performance). See also Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB).

  102. 102.

    Shilliday v Smith 1998 S.C. 725.

  103. 103.

    Wilmot-Smith (2013), pp. 414–436; Shilliday v Smith 1998 S.C. 725, per Lord Rodger; Union Totaliser Co Ltd v Scott 1951 SLT (Notes) 5; Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham [1956] 3 W.L.R. 37 contra Accarias (1873), p. 36, note 1.

  104. 104.

    Home (Lord Kames) (2006), p. 117 contra Hume (1739) 3.2.1.17, p. 311; Home (Lord Kames) (1767), pp. 12 et seq.; MacCormick (1982), pp. 190–211; MacCormick (2007) paras 7.2 and 13.5.

  105. 105.

    Walker (1995), p. 148 referring to Stair I, 10.12; Ersk III, 2,1 and 3, 38; Bell Prin §63 Normand (1939) 55 L.Q.R.358.

  106. 106.

    Hogg (2011), p. 178.

  107. 107.

    Wilkinson v Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp. 75; Wallace v Telfair 2 T.R.188; Massey v Banner (1820) 4 Madd. R. 416; Donaldson v Haldane (1840) 7 C1. & Fin. 762; Turnbull v Garden [1860] 9 Bar R.P., at [21.9].

  108. 108.

    French Civil Code, ex-Articles 1105 and 1106 contra French Civil Code, Article 1107 (current) and the case law underneath. See also Najjar (2020a) in Répertoire Civile Dalloz (online).

  109. 109.

    Andrew Jack v Isobel Jack [2016] CSIH 75, at [4]: ‘“for the love, favour and affection which I have and bear toward my son Andrew Jack, Junior, residing at Torbanehill Mains Farm”’.

References

Books

  • Accarias C (1873) Théorie des contrats innomés et explication du titre De praescriptis verbis au Digeste, 2nd edn. Retaux Frères, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1936) Physica, or Naturales Auscultationes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle Metaphysica (1837) Immanuelis Bekkeri, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubry C, Rau CF (1922) Cours de droit civil français, 5th edn. Imprimerie et Librairie Générale de Jurisprudence, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Babert G (2002) Le système de Planiol. ANRT, Lille

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfour (Lord Pittendreich) J (1962–1963) The Practicks of Sir James Balfour of Pittendreich. Stair Society, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumanoir (de) P (1842) Coutumes de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis. Comte Beugnot, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell GJ (2010) Principles of the law of Scotland, 4th edn. Edinburgh Legal Education Trust, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone (Sir) W (1765) Commentaries on the laws of England, vol 1. Legal Classics Library, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer L (1947) La notion de transaction. Contribution à l’étude des concepts de cause et d’acte déclaratif. Sirey, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows A (2011) Law of restitution, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Capitant H (1923) De la cause des obligations (contrats, engagements unilatéraux, legs), 1st edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Capitant H (1927) De la cause des obligations (contrats, engagements unilatéraux, legs), 3rd edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonnier J (2000) Droit civil. Les obligations, 22nd edn. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantepie G, Latina M (2016) La réforme du droit des obligations, Commentaire théorique et pratique dans l'ordre du Code civil. Dalloz, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colin A, Capitant H, Julliot de la Morandière L (1935) Cours élémentaire de droit civil français, 8th edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Collectif Paris II (2004) Le Code civil. Un passé, un présent, un avenir. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple (Viscount of Stair) J (1981) The institutions of the law of Scotland: deduced from its originals, and collated with the civil, canon and feudal laws, and with the customs of neighbouring nations in iv books, 2nd edn. University Presses of Edinburgh and Glasgow, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Degeling S, Edelman J (2005) Equity in commercial law. Lawbook Co., Cop., Pyrmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Demogue R (1923) Traité des obligations en général. Sources des obligations, vol 1, 1st edn. Rousseau, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domat J (1828) Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel. Firmin Didot Père et Fils, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Duguit L (1927) Traité de droit constitutionnel, vol 1, 3rd edn. Cujas, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre-Magnan M (2004) Les Obligations. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes W (2012) The Institutes of the law of Scotland. Edinburgh Legal Education Trust, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloag WM (1914) The law of contract: a treatise on the principle of contract in the law of Scotland. W. Green, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg M (2011) Promises and contract law: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Home (Lord Kames) H (1767) Principles of equity. Printed for A. Millar, London, and A. Kincaid & J. Bell, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Home (Lord Kames) H (2006) Sketches, vol 4, 1st edn. Liberty Fund, Incorporated, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Home (Lord Kames) H (2012) Essays on the principles of morality and natural religion. Liberty Fund, Incorporated, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope (Lord of Craighall) T (1726) Prakticks. Thomas Ruddiman, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtcieff D (2001) Le principe de cohérence en matière contractuelle. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (1739) Treatise of human nature. Longmans, Green & Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Josserand L (1928) Les mobiles dans les actes juridiques du droit privé. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Loysel A (1679) Institutes coutumières ou Manuel de plusieurs et diverses règles, sentences et proverbes, tant anciens que modernes, du droit coutumier et plus ordinaire de la France. Edme-Martin, Martin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1982) Legal right and social democracy. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (2007) Institutions of law. Oxford Scholarship Online, Cary

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacDouall (Lord Bankton) A (1993–1995) Institutes of the law of Scotland, 1st edn.. The Stair Society, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie G (1970–1979) Institutions of the law of Scotland. Printed by John Reid, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie Stuart AJ (1947) Contract and Quasi contract. In: Campbell G, Paton H (1958) An introduction to Scottish legal history, vol 20. Stair Society, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen H, Lord Eassie, The Right Hon (2017) Henderson and Gloag – the law of Scotland, 14th edn. W. Green, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen H, Thomson J (2012) Contract law in Scotland, 3rd edn. Bloomsbury Professional, Haywards Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaurie P, Aynès L, Stoffel-Munck P (2004) Droit civil. Les obligations. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Marty G, Raynaud P (1972) Droit civil. Introduction générale à l'étude du droit. Sirey, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Maury J (1920) Essai sur le rôle de la notion d’équivalence en droit civil français. Jouve, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazeaud D (2003) La matière du contrat. In: Rémy-Corlay P et al (2003) Les concepts contractuels français à l'heure des principes du droit européen des contrats: actes du colloque, 30 et 31 janvier 2003. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • McBryde WW (1987) The law of contract in Scotland, 1st edn. Thomson-Green, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C et al (2011) Goff & Jones law of unjust enrichment, 8th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Niort JF (1965) Homo civilis. L'auteur, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimont S (2004) L’économie du contrat. Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence

    Google Scholar 

  • Planiol M (1912) Traité élémentaire de droit civil, 6th edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Planiol M (1931) La cause du contrat. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothier RJ (2011) Traité des obligations. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rampelberg RM (2003) Le contrat et sa cause: aperçu historique et comparatif sur un couple controversé. In: Rémy-Corlay P, Fenouillet D (2003) Les concepts contractuels français à l'heure des principes du droit européen des contrats. Actes du colloque organisé les 30 et 31 janvier 2003 par l’Institut Charles Dumoulin de la Faculté Jean Monnet, Paris XI. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripert G (1949) La règle morale dans les obligations civiles, 4th edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T (1962) A short commentary on the law of Scotland. The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanhope Kenny C (1922) A selection of cases illustrative of the law of contract (based on the collection of G B Finch). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Terré F (1956) L’influence de la volonté individuelle sur les qualifications. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Terré F, Simler P, Lequette Y (2002) Droit civil, Les obligations, 8th edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Villey M (1962) Leçons d’histoire de la philosophie du droit. La philosophie grecque classique et le droit romain. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgo G (2015) Principles of the law of restitution, 3rd edn. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker DM (1995) The law of contracts and related obligations in Scotland, 3rd edn. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

Articles

Other

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London, UK

    Kane Abry

Authors
  1. Kane Abry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Statutory Provisions

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance.

Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC.

French Civil Code:

  • Article 16-1 (current).

  • Article 1101 (current).

  • Article 1103 (current).

  • Article 1104 (current).

  • Article 1106, °1 (current).

  • Article 1106, °2 (current).

  • Article 1107 (current).

  • Article 1107, °1 (current).

  • Article 1107, °2 (current).

  • 1108 (current).

  • Article 1129–1144 (current).

  • Article 1132 (current).

  • Articles 1145–1161 (current).

  • Article 1162 (current).

  • Articles 1162–1171 (current).

  • Article 1163 (current).

  • Article 1168 (current).

  • Article 1193 (current).

  • Article 1194 (current).

  • Article 1303 (current).

  • Article 1302-2 (current).

  • ex-Articles 1105 and 1106.

  • ex-Articles 1109–1122.

  • ex-Article 1107.

  • ex-Article 1108.

  • ex-Article 1109.

  • ex-Article 1117.

  • ex-Articles 1123–1125-1.

  • ex-Articles 1126–1130.

  • ex-Article 1131.

  • ex-Articles 1131–1133.

    French Constitution, Article 38.

    Ordonnance 2016-301 du 14-3-2016 relative à la partie législative du Code de la consommation.

    Loi (Hamon) 2014-344 du 17-3-2014 relative à la consommation.

    Loi 2017-203 du 21-2-2017 ratifiant [notamment] l’ordonnance 2016-301 du 14-3-2016 relative à la partie législative du Code de la consommation.

    Loi n° 2014-873 du 4 août 2014 pour l’égalité réelle entre les femmes et les hommes.

    Loi n° 2018-287 du 20 avril 2018 ratifiant l'ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations.

Roman Law

Digest, 50.17.206.

Case Law

Aix-en-Provence, 29 November 1927, JCP 1928. 11, 177.

Andrew Jack v Isobel Jack [2016] CSIH 75.

Anon (1533) in Walker, DM (1988).

Barnes v Eastenders [2014] UKSC 26, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 461.

Boots Co Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 609.

Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding Co 1923 S.C. (H.L.) 105.

Chappell v Nestlés [1960] AC 87.

Cour d'appel de Versailles, 12 January 2000, 1998–2334.

Cour de cassation, 22 October 1996, Bull. civ. IV, n°261, GAJC, 11th ed., n°156; D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux.

Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 1 December 1995: Bull. Civ. N°7 (2 arrêts); ibid, n°8; R, p. 290, GAJC, 11 éd, n°151-154.

Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 2 April 1993: Bull. Civ. N°9, R., p 326; GAJC, 11e éd., n°226; D. 1993. 373, concl. Jéol; D. 1993. Somm. 273., obs. Prétot; D. 1994, Somm. 14, obs. Aubert; JCP 1993. II.22051, cincl. Jéol; Gaz. Pal. 1993.2.560, concl. Jéol; RTD Civ. 1993. 820, obs. Mestre, Sériaux, D. 1993. Chron. 229.

Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 29 October 2004, Bull. civ. A P., n°12.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1 March 1989 Bull. civ. III, n° 49, p 29.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 1 October 1996, Bull. civ. I, n°235; D., 1997, somm., p 171, obs. R Libchaber; Contrats, conc. Consom., 1997, p 3, obs. L Leveneur; RTD Civ., 1997, p 116, obs. J Mestre.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 10 October 2000, D 2000 AJ, p 409, obs Avena-Robarde.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 12 July 1989, Bull. civ. I, n°293; GAJC, 11th edition, n°155; JCP 1990.II.21546, n. Y Dagorne-Labbé; Defrénois, 1990, p 358, obs. J-L Aubert; RTD Civ., 1990, p 468, obs. J Mestre.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 15 June 1994, Bull. civ. I, n°215; Defrénois, 1994, p 1113, obs. P Delebecque.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 16 February 1999, Bull. civ. I, n°55; D. Affaires, 1999, p 514, obs. J F; Contrats. Conc. Consom., 1999, n°70, obs. L Leveneur.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 19 December 1990, Bull. civ. I, n°303; R., p 372; JCP 1991.II.21656, n. J Bigot; RTD Civ., 1991, obs. J Mestre.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 19 January 1953, D 1953, p 234.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 20 January 1998: Bull. Civ. I, n°18; D. 1999. 500, note D. R. Martin (1re esp.); JCP 1999. I. 137, n°7, obs. Rullmann contra Digest, 12.6.14; Digest, 16.2.10.1.

Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 1, 22 February 1978, 76-11.551 (Affaire Poussin).

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 25 January 1965, Gaz. Pal. 1965 1 p. 198.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 25 January 1965: Gaz. Pal. 1965. 1. 198.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 26 August 1962, JCP 1983 II 19992, not Ph Terri.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 26 November 1996: Bull. Civ. I, n°415.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 27 February 2007, 02-13.420 03-21.179.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 29 March 2017, n°16-10007 and n°15-26766.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 February 1999, Bull. civ. I, n°43.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 July 1996, pourvoi no 94-14800, Bull. Civ. I. n°286 p 200, D. 30 octobre 1997, n°38, p 500, note P. Reigne, Juris-Classeur périodique 96. IV. 1998, 97,I,4015, obs. Labarthe.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 3 June 1997, n°95-13.568.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 4 December 1956, Bull. civ. I, n°439; JCP 1957.II.10008, note J Mazeaud, Bull. civ. I, n°439; JCP 1957.II.10008, note J Mazeaud.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 7 October 1998, Bull. civ. I, n°285; GAJC, 11th ed., n°157; D., 1998, p 563, concl. J Sainte-Rose; D., 1999, somm., p 110, obs. P Delebecque; D., 1999, ‘L’influence du motif illicite ou immoral sur la validité du contrat’, chron., p 237, O Tournafond; D. Affaires, 1998, p 1772, obs. J F; Defrénois, 1998, p 1408, obs. D Mazeaud; 1999, p 602, obs. V Chariot; JCP 1998.II.10202, note M H Maleville ; JCP 1999.I.114, n°1, obs. C Jamin; Gaz. Pal. 2000.1.643, note F Chabas; Contrats, conc. Consom., 1999, n°1, obs. L Leveneur, Petites Affiches, 5 March 1999, note S Prieur.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 8 November 1982, Bull. civ. I, n°321; Paris, 1 April 1895, Gaz. Pal. 1895.2.158.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 14 September 2005: Bull. Civ. III, n°166; D.2006. 761, note D. Mazeaud; JCP 2005. II.10173, note Loiseau; JCP E 2005. 1867, note Binctin; Defrénois 2005, 19122. Noote Dagorne-Labbe; ibid, 2006. 248, note Techendjou; CCC 2006, n°1, note Leveneur; LPA, 1st December 2005, note Messai-Bahri, RDC 2006. 811, obs. Viney; RTD cv. 2005. 776, obs. Mestre et Fage.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 18 July 2001, Bull. civ. n°101; D., 2002, p 680, n. C Castets; somm., p 390, obs. G Paisant; Defrénois, 2001, p 1421, obs. E Savaux; Contrats, conc., conso. 2001., n°171, n. L Leveneur; Droit et patrimoine, December 2001, p 98, obs. P Chauvel.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 3, 18 May 2011.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 1 May 1855, S., 1855.1.337.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 11 December 1900, DP 1901. 1. 257 – 30 mars 1943, DC 1944. 13, note L.P.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 19 November 1932, D., 1933.1.26.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 23 April 1898, D., 1998.1.415.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 30 April 1947, JCP 1947. IV. 97.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 13 February 2007, Faurecia I, n° 05-17407, Bulletin 2007, IV, N°43.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 13 June 2006, Chronopost V, n°05-12619, Bulletin 2006 IV N°143, p 152.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 15 February 2000, Bull. civ. IV, n°29; D., 2000, somm., p 364 obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 2000, p 1118, obs. D Mazeaud; Petites Affiches, 29 December 2000, p 12, n. G Meilhac-Redon and J Marmoz; RTD Civ., 2000, p 325, obs. J Mestre and B Fages.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 15 February 2000, Bull. civ. IV, n°29; D., 2000, somm., p 364 obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 2000, p 1118, obs. D Mazeaud; Petites Affiches, 29 December 2000, p 12, n. G Meilhac-Redon and J Marmoz; RTD Civ., 2000, p 325, obs. J Mestre and B Fages, D Mazeaud.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 19 February 1991, n°89-18498.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 19 May 1998, n°96-16.393.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 22 October 1996, Bull. civ. IV, n°261, GAJC, 11th ed., n°156; D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux; somm., p 175, obs. P Delebecque; Defrénois, 1997, p 333, obs. D Mazeaud; JCP 1997.II.22881, n. D Cohen; I.4002, n°1, obs. M Fabre-Magnan; I.4027, n°17, n. G Viney; Contrats, conc. Conso., 1997, n°24, obs. L Leveneur; Gaz. Pal., 1997.2.519, n. R Martin ; RTD Civ. 1997, p 418, obs. J Mestre.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 22 October 1996, D., 1997, jurisp., p 121, n. A Sériaux; D., 1997, chron., p 145, n°3, n. C Larroumet.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 28 September 2004, Bull. civ. IV, n°167; D., 2005, p 302, n. M-A Rakotovahini; JCP 2005.I.107, p 147, obs. M Cabrillac.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 29 June 2010, Faurecia II, n° 09-11841, Bulletin 2010, IV, n°115.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 3 November 1992: JCP 1993. II.27164, note Virassamy, Defrénois 1993. 1377, obs. Aubert; RTD Civ. 1993. 124, obs. Mestre.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 30 May 2006, Chronopost IV, n° 04-14974, Bulletin 2006 IV N°132, p 134.

Cour de cassation, Chambre commerciale, 9 July 2002, Chronopost II, n° 99-12554, Bulletin 2002 IV N°121, p 129.

Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 1 April 1895, DP, 1895.1.263.

Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 11 Novembre 1890, S., 1891.1.319; DP, 1891.1.484.

Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 15 June 1892, DP 92. 1. 596, S. 93. 1. 281, note Labbé.

Cour de cassation, Chambre des requêtes, 4 January 1897, D. 1897.1.126.

Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 April 2005, Bull. civ., n°231; Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 May 2005, Bull. civ., n°232.

Cour de cassation, Chambre Mixte, 22 April 2005, Chronopost III, n° 03-14112, Bulletin 2005 Mixt. N° 4, p 10.

Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 7 May 2008: Bull. Civ. V, n°99.

Cour de cassation, Chambre sociale, 8 January 1964, D. 1964.267.

Craw v Culbertson (1663) Mor 12384.

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153.

Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham [1956] 3 W.L.R. 37.

De la Bere v Pearson [1908] 1 KB 280.

Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd 1992 SC (HL) 104.

Donaldson v Haldane (1840) 7 C1. & Fin. 762.

Drummond v Bisset [1551] Mor 12381.

Deuchar v Brown (1672) Mor 9425.

Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team [2010] EWHC 2373 (QB).

Kintore v Sinclair [1623] Mor 94252.

Liège, Tribunal, 14 November 1896.

Lundie v Douglas (1681) 2 Brown’s Supp 265.

Massey v Banner (1820) 4 Madd. R. 416.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co of New York vs Lothian Regional Council 1995 S.L.T. 299.

North Ocean Shipping v Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] QB 705.

Paris, 19 April 1858, S., 1858.2.366.

Paris, 23 July 1926, DH 1926. 568.

Paris, 3 March 1898.

Rover International v Cannon [1989] 1 WLR 912.

Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd [2001] HCA 68, High Court, 2001) 208 CLR 516.

Sharp v Sharp (1631) Mor 4299.

Shilliday v Smith 1998 S.C. 725.

Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping [1989] 1 WLR 574.

The Abbot of Kilwinning v Andro Auchinleck [1533] Mor 827.

The Laird of Clackmannan v Sir William Nisbet (1624) Spottiswoode 248.

Tribunal Civil de Marseille, 17 March 1927.

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 3 June 1969, D., 1970, p 136.

Turnbull v Garden [1860] 9 Bar R.P..

Union Totaliser Co Ltd v Scott 1951 SLT (Notes) 5.

Wallace v Telfair 2 T.R.188.

Watson & Co v Shankland (1871) 10 M. 142.

White v Bluett [1853] 23 LJ Ex 3.

Wilkinson v Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp. 75.

Wood v Robertson (1672) Mor 12225.

Case Reports

Gosford’s report at [12388].

Report on Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 8 November 1982, Bull. civ. I, n°321.

Hauser, J (2004) Observation under Cour de cassation, Assemblée Plénière, 29 October 2004, RTD Civ., 2005, pp 104ff.

Cour de cassation, Chambre civile, 5 February 1902, S., 1902.1.389; DP, 1902.1.158.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Abry, K. (2023). Article 1108 et seq. and the Specification of the Consensual Doctrine. In: The Construction, Sources, and Implications of Consensualism in Contract. Studies in the History of Law and Justice, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37641-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37641-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37640-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37641-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation