Correspondence · 5 Feb 2002
Untruths (4)
Fourth “Untruths” note: the court's criticism of the rents set against the occupation indemnity it awards to McDonald’s.
- Type
- Argument note
- Date
- 5 Feb 2002
- Parties
- McDonald’s France v. Bernard Collorafi
Summary
Summary sheet
“Untruths” note (4) — document in the Collorafi case file · 5 February 2002
Overview: Fourth note in the “Untruths” series: it juxtaposes two elements of the judgment of 8 March 2000 relating to the rents, in order to highlight their contradiction from Mr Collorafi's point of view.
Key points
The note quotes the judgment of 8 March 2000, according to which McDonald’s applied “rent rates that are incomprehensible in a time of economic war” and should have gone outside the range provided for in the agreement to enable Mr Collorafi's companies to return to profitability and positive cash flow. It points out that the same judges nevertheless awarded McDonald’s, for the six months following the terminations held to be wrongful, an occupation indemnity 50% higher than the rents.
Significance
A note pointing to an inconsistency, from Mr Collorafi's point of view, between the court's criticism of the rents and the occupation indemnity it nevertheless awarded to the opposing party.
Sheet generated automatically from the text of the document.
The document
Full text
Full text of the document, as it appeared in the original case file (native digital source).
Scroll within the frame to read the complete text — the full text remains present on the page.