Back to Questions
Want to know:
Tout ce qu'ils ont acquis avant mariage reste leur propriété personnel (biens propres dont biens reçus ou donation pendant le mariage)Les biens acquis pendant le mariage à titre onéreux sont réputés être des biens communs (50% chacun), cela comprend également les revenus provenant de l'act pro des époux.-> En cas de dissolution: présomption de communauté: si un des époux souhaite se prévaloir de la propriété d'un bien il devra en fournir la preuve
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- Soustraction, sans raison légitime, à une obligation de formation
- Chacun est responsable du dommage qu'il a causé non seulement par son fait, mais encore par sa négligence ou par son imprudence
- I talked about the case Scheck v Burger King, in which Scheck is the franchisee and entered into a franchise agreement with Burger King, the franchisor, to own and operate a Burger King franchise location. Burger King opened another location within a couple miles of Mr. Scheck's location. There was no restriction in the franchise agreement that prevented Burger King from opening a location near the franchisee's location. What did the court conclude? Select the best answer.- The case was dismissed. The contract terms (franchise agreement) clearly did not restrict Burger King from opening a restaurant near Mr. Scheck's location.- Mr. Scheck, the franchisee should have read the franchise agreement more thoroughly before signing it, he is now bound to the terms and has no redress for this encroachment on his territory.- The court ruled in favor of Burger King, the franchisor, and concluded Mr. Scheck simply has "buyer's remorse", there is risk in every business transaction.- Even though the franchise agreement did not address territory, the court found Burger King had violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing present in every commercial contract.