Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
NOTICE by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) Translations of Foreign Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53, #54 Exhibit 54, #55 Exhibit 55, #56 Exhibit 56, #57 Exhibit 57, #58 Exhibit 58, #59 Exhibit 59, #60 Exhibit 60, #61 Exhibit 61, #62 Exhibit 62, #63 Exhibit 63)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/7/2012)
CASS-REQ. 1 December 1885
SALE, AGREEMENT BY PARTIES, PRICE, PAYMENT.
A sale is binding between the seller and the purchaser as soon as they agree on the
item and the price, and without the need to settle among themselves using a special
agreement the time and place of payment of the price, on the amount of which they agreed
(2) (C. Civ., 1583).
The purchaser who, in setting his price, stipulated no specific mode of payment, is
deemed subject to art. 1651, of the Civil Code, according to which, if nothing has been
settled in this regard, the price is payable at the place and time of delivery, i.e. in cash (3)
(Civil Code, 1651).
Therefore, from the moment when the price offered purely and simply by the
purchaser has been accepted by the seller, the purchaser has no basis to claim that the
contract is pending, because the conditions under which the price would be paid have not
been expressly regulated (4) (Id.).
(Cibiel C. Dieulafoy). – JUDGMENT
THE COURT; - On the sole grounds of the appeal derived from the violation of arts.
1108, 1109, 1583, 1584, and 1602, of the Civil Code, and from incorrect application of arts.
1650, and 1651 of the same Code: - Whereas under the terms of article 1583, of the
Commercial Code, the sale is binding between the parties, as soon as they have agreed to the
item and the price, that in truth, this agreement is not completely composed, as long as there
is discussion about the conditions under which the price will be paid; but that, if the
purchaser, in fixing his price, hasn't stipulated any particular method of payment, he is
deemed subject to article 1651 of the Civil Code, according to which, when nothing has been
settled in this regard, the price is payable at the place and time of delivery, i.e. in cash, unless
the seller has set a time frame for delivery; that thus, from the moment when the price offered
purely and simply by the purchaser is accepted by the seller, it cannot be claimed that the
contract is still pending, because the terms of payment have not been expressly set; - Whereas
the disputed judgment finds, indeed, that following unsuccessful negotiations between Cibiel
and the Dieulafoy spouses, for the sale of a house in Toulouse, belonging to these latter, the
notary Lozes, acting on behalf of and as agent of the said Dieulafoy spouses, wrote, on 17
Oct. 1883, to Cibiel asking him if he still intended to purchase the property, and what specific
price he would pay; that in a letter dated 24 Oct., Cibiel responded to the notary that he
would pay 125,000 fr.; that in a letter dated 29 Oct., the notary informed Cibiel that this
number was accepted, and that all that remained was signing the deed of sale; that this
opinion, confirmed by another letter dated 12 Nov., was received without complaint by
Cibiel, and that it is only on the following 6 Jan. that the said Cibiel claimed no involvement;
- Whereas these findings from the judgment are sovereign; that by deciding, consequently,
that a sale was entered into between the parties, the appellate court soundly applied arts. 1583
and 1651, of the Civil Code, and violated no other legal provision; - Rejects the appeal
against the judgement by the Court of Appeals in Toulouse, on 28 April1885, etc.
On 1 Dec. 1885. – Ch. Req. – Attorney Bedarrides, pres.; Cotelle, reporter; Chevrier,
adv. gen. (concl. conf.); Passez, adv.
See to that effect, Cass. 8 August 1867 (S. 1868.1.39. – P. 1868.62) –
Remember that the question of whether a will contains sufficient mention of the
dictation and reading, in the presence of witnesses, is not a simple question of fact,
but a question of law which will be decided by the Supreme Court. See Cass. 8
August 1867 (S. 1868.1.39 – P. 1868. 02), and the references. In applying this
principle, see Cass. 21 Dec. 1873 (S. 1874.1.487. – P. 1874 1235), and the reference;
22 June 1881 (S. 1882.1117. – P. 1882.2.258), notes and references.
(2-3-4) Under arts. 1583 and 1651, of the Civil Code, the sale is binding between the
parties, when the item and the price are agreed upon, and the price is payable at the
place and time of delivery, i.e. in cash, if in this respect something else has not been
agreed to. When the purchaser offers his price purely and simply, he is to provide
payment in cash, and, therefore, from the moment that his price is accepted by the
seller, the purchaser cannot claim that the contract between is still pending, under the
pretext that the terms of how payment will occur have not been expressly set.