CASE

Tasman Ltd have entered into a contract to lease machines to Vinci Company. The lease contract states that Vinci have to pay a monthly rent of €2,000 for the machines. In reality, Vinci and Tasman have agreed that Vinci only have to pay €1,500. Tasman sell their assets, including the machines and the lease contract with Vinci, to Kepsky & Co. The lease is validly assigned. While neither Tasman nor Vinci make any inaccurate statements to Kepsky, neither of them inform Kepsky of the lower monthly rent. Based on the rent set out in the lease, Kepsky thinks it is worth buying the lease from Tasman. When Kepsky send out the first monthly invoice for €2,000 to Vinci after the sale, Vinci reply that they only have to pay €1,500.

Question

What do Vinci have to pay Kepsky?

DISCUSSIONS

BELGIUM

Siel Demeyere and Vincent Sagaert

I. Operative Rules

Vinci would likely have to pay €2,000 to Kepsky.

II. Descriptive Formants

Tasman and Vinci have agreed a different rent to that mentioned in their contract. This situation is addressed in Belgian law as a situation of veinzing/simulation (simulation). Simulation can relate to the existence of the agreement (e.g. sale where there is none), the sort of agreement (e.g. sale instead of gift), the identity of the contracting parties (in the case of naamlening/prête-nom (name lending)) or the content of the agreement.