Correspondence · 3 Feb 2002
Untruths (2)
Note in reply taking up, point by point, the “untruths” of the opposing party.
- Type
- Correspondence
- Date
- 3 Feb 2002
- Parties
- McDonald’s France v. Bernard Collorafi
Summary
Summary sheet
“Untruth” note — Collorafi · 3 February 2002
Overview: short argument note, added to the case file, which juxtaposes several statements attributed to McDonald's in order to highlight their contradictions.
Key points
The note brings together three elements. First, the out-of-court expert report written by “SEPT” at McDonald's request allegedly states that “McDonald's helps franchisees who are in financial difficulty”. Second, in its brief to the Court of Cassation, McDonald's allegedly wrote that, without the termination of the agreements, Mr Collorafi “would have made even greater losses”. Finally, the note recalls that the judges allegedly stated, in the judgment of 8 March 2000, that the rents were incomprehensible in a period of “economic war”. The document thus sets the franchisor's discourse of support against its own pleadings and the findings of the court.
Significance
A document from the cassation phase: it summarises, from the franchisee's point of view, the inconsistencies attributed to the opposing party in order to support his challenge.
Sheet generated automatically from the transcription of the document.
The original scan
Full transcription
Text obtained by optical character recognition (OCR) of the original scan, layout preserved. Automatic recognition — errors remain, especially on degraded faxes. The scan above is authoritative.
Scroll within the frame to read the full transcription — the complete text remains present on the page.