Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This study has two purposes. First, it intends to clarify to what extent there is a right of direct action in Swedish law. Second, it attempts to establish the implications of different rules governing the direct action claim. The concept of direct action is used where the following conditions are fulfilled. (1) A creditor (C) is entitled to make a claim against his debtor's (D's) debtor, or the debtor of his debtor's debtor etc., or both, (against DD). (2) C's right remains the same where D (or an intermediary party) goes bankrupt or a seizure is made of the relevant claim against DD. (3) C's claim against DD does not exceed his claim against D. (4) C's claim against DD does not exceed D's (or an intermediary party's) claim against DD, or the claim that D (or an intermediary party) would have had against DD, if there had been no excuses from liability. (5) DD's performance to C will entail a corresponding reduction of C's claim against D. (6) C's right to bring action against DD is independent of (other) recognised principles of law. Analyses are made of cases where D has concluded a transaction with C on DD's behalf but in his own name or without authority, and cases where DD has, in a contract with D, assumed an obligation, which is closely linked to D's obligation towards C. The study also includes cases where a breach of contract by DD has caused a breach of contract by D against C, and cases where DD's tortious act (or omission) or breach of contract against D has caused consequential loss to C.

Cet article consiste en une analyse de l'évolution du droit positif sur l'exécution forcée en nature d'une obligation de faire. En effet, après avoir été largement admis, le principe de l'exécution forcée en nature d'une obligation de faire paraît aujourd'hui remis en cause. Une jurisprudence croissante, revenant à une interprétation rigoriste de l'article 1142 du Code civil et, de ce fait, défavorable à l'effet contraignant des obligations, considère, d'une façon générale, que toute obligation de faire (ou de ne pas faire) se résout en dommages et intérêts, en cas d'inexécution par le débiteur. Le retour vers l'exclusion de l'exécution forcée, constaté en matière de promesses de contrats tend à se généraliser au point d'embrasser les contrats définitifs dès l'origine (I). Mais la portée du principe nouveau d'exclusion de l'exécution forcée d'une obligation de faire semble, en fin de compte, restreinte en raison de son incohérence sur le plan théorique et de son irréalisme sur le plan pratique (II).