Facts

The case concerns a hire-purchase contract for a Mercedes 280 SE vehicle, concluded on 25 May 1983. The seller reserved ownership of the vehicle until full payment of the price. The vehicle was used by the buyer, V., who only paid a few monthly installments. The bank, [A.], brought a lawsuit to recover the vehicle and the unpaid amount. The cantonal court condemned V. for unlawful appropriation and ordered the payment of the unpaid amount to the bank.

The key facts are as follows

  • The hire-purchase contract was concluded on 25 May 1983.
  • The seller reserved ownership of the vehicle until full payment of the price.
  • The buyer, V., used the vehicle without paying the full price.
  • The bank, [A.], brought a lawsuit to recover the vehicle and the unpaid amount.
  • The cantonal court condemned V. for unlawful appropriation and ordered the payment of the unpaid amount to the bank.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the decision of the cantonal court and considered that the notion of appropriation implies that the author intends, on the one hand, the lasting dispossession of the owner and, on the other hand, that he intends to attribute the thing to himself, at least for a time. This intention must be manifested by external signs.

The Federal Court also considered that appropriation means that the offender has incorporated the foreign thing or its value into his own assets, either to conserve it, or to consume it, or to sell it to a third party. The offender must have the intention of behaving like an owner without having the quality.

The Federal…