Californians of the Senate and the House are the key committees All are capable of passing alliances of circumstance with the other sideWe bet that London does that emerge fine wordsHowever the rural France fears to change pricesThe minority shareholder to win visibility I was loaded but the elevator was blocked2 of women executives against 15 in 2002Proximity coupled with easy turns into proxilitéFrance it becomes contractor by necessity not by opportunityThe ABF is also required in the backedup areasCan be, in justice, argue everything and its opposite: claim the performance of a contract after having argued its nullity; support that an arbitration award is void on the grounds that the Court would have held without arbitration agreement after yet self forming the request and participated fully in the proceeding... In short, can we do not hesitate to contradict itself to fire all wood The law, we know, suffers from being considered a school of rhetoric, which encourage and reward all sorts of quibbles. If you can understand that the advice of the parties wish to cover all sorts of legal and procedural assumptions, should we not punish lack of consistency in the theses of a litigant More generally, can the case law impose a requirement of good faith and procedural fairness
Read hastily, a judgment of 27 February last rendered by the Court of cassation could be doubt. In this case, meeting in its more formal training, the plenary Assembly broke an appeal decision specifically refused to hear the applicant on the merits, the inadmissible registrant account to its incessant contradictions. While the appellate judges had seen behavior meriting sanction, the Court of cassation refused to follow this logic.
Is it to say that the less conscious litigants of the coherence of their arguments have beautiful days ahead Such a conclusion would be clearly wrong. In this case, for contradictory as it might seem, the behaviour of the litigant did indeed not deserve deprivation of the right to be heard: the shares had incurred were not similar (interim, and then at the bottom; execution of promised benefits, then compensation for the damage caused by the improper performance); they were not based on the same agreements, nor were directed against the same people. The matter should be heard and heard to be decided on the merits of the law and not be rejected without review as inadmissible. Further, the formula employed by the Court of cassation shows actually it intends well to penalize disloyal behaviour but on the condition of control cases of application of this procedural sanction: the dismissal of the action "not is inferred automatically adversarial behavior."
Procedural loyalty
The form must also be in relation to various recent decisions that draw a net movement for procedural loyalty. They are intended to recognize a principle of prohibition of contradiction to the detriment of others the English speak of the "rule of estoppel. By a decision of 6 July 2005, the Court of cassation thus spent the solution in the specific field of international arbitration, holding inadmissible way contrary to what might have been previously submitted. July 7, 2006, the plenary Assembly, should, upon penalty of inadmissibility, the requirement for the litigant to "focus" means, in other words the duty to try once, before the same judge, all the legal arguments which tend to the same objective (for example: break out of a contract, obtain compensation, etc.). A litigant may not benefit from its contradictions. In several cases, the social Chamber of the Court of cassation also applied widely this ban to contradict himself, holding and the employee who "challenged at any time the enunciation of the letter of dismissal on the impossibility of its reclassification may propose to the Court of cassation an incompatible way with the thesis he developed before the judges of the bottom" alleging a breach of the employer in his duty to reclassification. Same solution now for the question of the reality of the removal of employment or the economic reason for the dismissal.
Good faith thus objected to delaying procedural prerogatives or abusive exercise as it prohibits to grossly contradict. Probably need to that the Court of cassation knows clarify from when the contradiction deserves to be punished. The English estoppel protects all confidence legitimate part, by preventing it to be incoherent and contradictory to the other behaviour. Our jurisprudence is moving towards a broader recognition of procedural fairness: it does not protect the confidence disappointed; It punishes the inconsistency and contradictory arguments. So much the better: law cannot reward litigants in bad faith.
