This project has not gone unnoticed. Sixty housing units have emerged in the city center of Thionville, where the Nouviaire mill was once located on rue Maréchal-Joffre. The operation continues to be talked about.
The promoter, the Marie-Louise company, lodged a complaint against the Chrisli company, in charge of exterior joinery. A contract of nearly € 400,000 won in February 2018. At the time, the company made its quotes. The promoter pays a deposit of € 98,000. Except that the construction is late. “In the meantime, prices have gone up. The company can no longer offer the service at the advertised rate, ”explains the manager’s lawyer, Me Michel Nassoy. The installation is postponed. The boss of the company Chrisli is called to order. He arranges, finds another wholesaler and manages to install the windows, except that they are not up to the required standards. “What would have happened if we hadn’t noticed, and there had been a fire in two years?” “, Pushes the promoter’s lawyer, Me Jean-Christophe Duchet.
The case first landed before the commercial chamber of the Thionville judicial court. The company in question is ordered to reimburse the deposit received. But SARL Chrisli has since been liquidated. And the manager cannot pay.
–
Financial consequences
The procedure ends in criminal proceedings, before the criminal court. The promoter denounces a scam. “He was not informed of the change in the type of windows,” confirms the public prosecutor, Brice Partouche. According to him, there was indeed a deception. It requires five years of prohibition to manage and a 10,000 euros fine against the manager as well as 3,000 euros against the company also sued.
But one point, raised by the promoter’s lawyer, disrupts the end of the debates: how to condemn a company that has already been liquidated?
“The easiest way is to relax everyone,” says defense lawyer, Me Nassoy. He maintains that his client had no intention of cheating on anyone when he signed the deal. The fraud would not have been anticipated and the fraud would therefore not be characterized. “There is indeed a contractual fault, sanctioned by the commercial chamber, but no criminal fault”, continues the council.
“The poor quality of the windows was known,” insists the developer’s lawyer, Me Duchet. He recalled that attempts at dialogue had always failed before the trial. He is also surprised that the boss has already set up a company in his name. He also wonders where the down payment money went. He continues to quantify the financial consequences of the fault: the removal of the carpentry, the intervention of the plasterers and the purchase of new windows to the standards.
The court will deliver its decision on November 9.
–
