This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: See section 8-2 of this bilingual document: https://www.ecomal.com/agb/agb_fr.pdf Note the low confidence due to the scarcity of supporting references
Thanks Adrian! It seems to fit the context alright. If there is a sale of goods (Article 705) a contract is created, so it seems that the text here is about enforcing a contract, hence specific performance.
Good point. I ought to have mentioned that I'd actually considered SP extrapolated from l'exécution en nature, but - putting the cart before the horse - it didn't seem to fit the scenario of claiming goods, rather enforcing a pre-existing contract. Reverse logic would mean that every phrase ending in 'en nature' - like apport en nature as a contribution-in-kind - would need the spec. perf. spin even when incongruous.
French term or phrase: une exécution en nature English translation: specific performance
In this light, "revendication en nature" would be "claim for specific performance".
"Specific performance is an equitable relief granted by the Court to enforce contractual obligations between the parties. It is a remedy in performance as opposed to a claim sounding in damages for breach of contract where pecuniary compensation is granted as relief for failure to carry out the terms of the contract."
Certainly the structure of the Code is not very cartesian.
Often former colonies (I think Morocco was called a "Protectorate", technically) more or less copy French codes, or at least retain legislation left over from colonial times, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
Article 705 Peuvent également être revendiquées, si elles se retrouvent en nature au moment de l’ouverture de la procédure, les marchandises vendues avec une clause de réserve de propriété subordonnant le transfert de propriété au paiement intégral du prix. Cette clause, qui peut figurer dans un écrit régissant un ensemble d’opérations commerciales convenues entre les parties, doit avoir été convenue entre les parties dans un écrit établi, au plus tard, au moment de la livraison.
Article 707 Dans tous les cas, il n’y a pas lieu à revendication si le preix et payé immédiatement. Le juge-commissaire peut, avec le consentement du créancier revendiquant, accorder un délai de règlement. Le paiement du prix et alors assimilé à celui d’une créance née régulièrement après le jugement d’ouverture.
I'll have to come back to the question at a later time as I've got a big project on and it's late here in France (after 10 pm).
Steve, I've just seen your Discussion entry (I did not get a notification about it). I think you assumed that I had seen it, since you did not flag the fact that you had a copy of the updated Code. Bridge's entry does not take different types of claims/actions into account.
Look at your peer comment again -- no mention of the updated text!
So, in my defence, I was not operating using the same information, because of a ProZ notification failure.
(For the record, I didn't get a notification about Eliza's entry either, but my Discussion notifications seem to be working again fine now.)
That all being said, I'm standing by my answer -- I don't talk about establishing title to a debt (but that does actually exist in the crazy world of finance -- what are bonds, after all?), I talk about establishing title to assets.
You can completely legally own something but still have to go through the motions (literally!) in court to get it back.
Hi Conor, Thanks for your suggestion. Sorry for the delayed reply. I got the info you requested: Article 705 Peuvent également être revendiquées, si elles se retrouvent en nature au moment de l’ouverture de la procédure, les marchandises vendues avec une clause de réserve de propriété subordonnant le transfert de propriété au paiement intégral du prix. Cette clause, qui peut figurer dans un écrit régissant un ensemble d’opérations commerciales convenues entre les parties, doit avoir été convenue entre les parties dans un écrit établi, au plus tard, au moment de la livraison. Article 707 Dans tous les cas, il n’y a pas lieu à revendication si le preix et payé immédiatement. Le juge-commissaire peut, avec le consentement du créancier revendiquant, accorder un délai de règlement. Le paiement du prix est alors assimilé à celui d’une créance née régulièrement après le jugement d’ouverture.
"Revendication" is covered in articles 700-9. It is clearly about actions intended to get something back. For instance, if the object you owned has been sold, you can "revendiquer" the relevant portion of the sale price, or if you consigned a fungible physical asset (some fuel, for instance), you can "revendiquer" any asset identical to one you consigned.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but it would seem peculiar to me to talk about "establishing title" to a sum of cash or a fungible physical asset. Nor is that fundamentally what these actions seem to be about - they don't seem to be about disputes of title. The fact that actions en revendication and actions en restitution are (in France) fundamentally the same thing, also leads me to prefer recovery and restitution as translations - notwithstanding the fact that the article cited by Scott goes on to use "récupération" to refer to recovery in the strict physical sense.
Sorry, I forgot to explain this in my comment on your post. This is from the link I posted, distinguishing two very similar types of action:
"L’action en revendication : Si vous êtes propriétaire d’un bien cédé avec une clause de réserve de propriété ou détenu par le débiteur au titre d'un contrat de location de dépôt ou de consignation-vente et que le contrat n’ a pas été publié, vous devez faire valoir votre droit de propriété en revendiquant votre bien dans le cadre d’une demande en revendication.
L’action en restitution : C’est une demande que vous devez mettre en œuvre pour récupérer votre bien si votre droit de propriété n’est pas contestable en raison de la publication du contrat." https://www.actismj.fr/accueil/revendication-restitution
In EN I'm not aware of any law where the publication or not of the contract makes a difference, so in EN these would both be the same type of action: suing someone who is in possession of property that you own, in order to recover that property (or, for fungible goods, to recover equivalent goods). We'd call that an action for restitution, or for the recovery of property.
Scott, could you post the article before and the article after this one? And does this section of the Code have any particular title or heading?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
1 hr confidence:
in-kind claim
Explanation: See section 8-2 of this bilingual document: https://www.ecomal.com/agb/agb_fr.pdf Note the low confidence due to the scarcity of supporting references
Marco Solinas Local time: 14:26 Works in field Native speaker of: English, Italian PRO pts in category: 70
Explanation: ... the extended lien 'traceable' into goods intermingled with other goods or 'fungibles'.
I can't work out if Romalpa 'extended retention of title clauses' are used in the USA. So I'll leave that one for now.
Example sentence(s):
Morocco: L'efficacité limitée de la revendication en nature des biens vendus sous clause de réserve de propriété ('subject to lien') dans le traitement des entreprises
The Practical Consequences of the Romalpa Case. 8 Few writers have presumed to publish suggested drafts of *extended retention of title* clauses.
