Duval v. Chedot
France Court of Cassation
J.C.P. 1970. II. 16162 (1969)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Mr. Duval (defendant), a certified public accountant, performed accounting and tax services for Mr. Chedot (plaintiff), who operated a garage business. Chedot later terminated Duval’s services and hired another accountant. Duval billed Chedot for services performed before the termination, but Chedot refused to pay, apparently believing that Chedot had a claim for malpractice against Duval. Pending payment of Duval’s bill, Duval retained Chedot’s records, as allowed under French law. French tax authorities later audited Chedot. Chedot asked Duval to return Chedot’s business records, but Duval refused because Chedot had not paid the bill. Chedot then asked Duval to give the tax authorities access to the records, but Duval again refused. The tax authorities assessed further taxes and penalties against Chedot. Chedot sued Duval in Caen, France, claiming the tax charges were Duval’s fault. Duval counterclaimed for payment of his bill for services rendered and a judicial declaration that Duval had the right to retain Duval’s records until paid. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Duval for payment of the bill, which Chedot did not appeal. The trial court then entered judgment against Duval for abusing his right to retain the records and awarded sizable damages. Duval unsuccessfully appealed to the Caen intermediate appellate court. Duval then appealed to the Court of Cassation—France’s highest court of appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.