The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which ordered Mrs X to pay the outstanding rental charges to Sofinroute Sofinco Service. The Supreme Court’s ruling was made for the following reasons:
The judges in the Court of First Instance found the contract to be null and void on the basis of articles L. 121-21ff CC. This finding was based on a statement given by a former employee of the Safiroute Corporation who sold the vehicle financed by Sofinroute Sofinco Service.
In the Court of Appeal’s view, the judges in the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the statement. According to the statement, the transaction was concluded at a third party’s residence. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that provisions concerning doorstep selling did not apply since the contract was not signed at Mrs X’s residence. As a result, there was no requirement to mention the seller’s name – with failure to do so rendering the contract null and void – since in reality, this requirement is not laid down in the Act of 10 January 1978 on the provision of credit to private individuals.
This ruling was overturned as the Court of Appeal had clearly ascertained that the transaction was concluded in a location not intended for the sale of the good(s) on offer. As a result, the seller’s name had to be mentioned; failure to mention it rendered the contract null and void. Since the name did not appear on the contract, it had to be annulled.