Case

Carlo, a famous musician, agreed to come to a dinner to be held in his honour by a private music conservatory. Two days before the dinner, he was offered a large sum of money if he would give a performance in another city the night of the dinner, taking the place of another musician who had become ill. He notified the conservatory that he could not come because he had accepted a conflicting invitation. The conservatory cancelled the dinner after it had already spent a large amount of money on publicity and food. Can the conservatory recover against Carlo?

Discussions

FRANCE

Under French law, the central issue of this case is whether Carlo's promise was legally or morally binding. French courts enforce only legal promises, and never gentlemen's agreements. In order to succeed with its claim the conservatory has to characterize Carlo's promise as a legal one. However, there are no rules whatsoever in French law to help. It is all a question of fact and is left to the lower courts' assessment. In this respect their power is absolute (appréciation souveraine), and not subject to the control of the appellate courts or the highest court, the Cour de cassation. This means that case law on the subject may be contradictory. It is therefore open to conjecture how a French court would exercise the wide discretion it has in the matter. The fact that Carlo was not given any money to come to the dinner would probably be a factor in favour of describing the promise as a purely moral one.