COURT CHRONICLE

DRIVING AT INTERSECTIONS
The Ninth Chamber of the Court, upon the pleadings of Messrs. Gatrelout, Maurice Delépine, and Gevain, ruled, regarding a car accident that occurred on January 23, 1924, on the Route de Meaux in Paris, that if the driver of a car attempting to overtake has a legitimate reason to believe that he can take the lead when, seemingly responding to his call, the car in front has moved to the right, this rule ceases to apply when the said car in front is about to arrive at an intersection.

In this case, the car in front, upon a warning from the car behind it, moved to the right, then turned left to enter a country lane.

Consequently, the accident is not attributable to the driver of the first car. EXTENSION AND CONTRARY AGREEMENTS
By agreement dated November 15, 1919, Mrs. R..., a tenant on Rue Vaneau, had agreed with her landlord to vacate her apartment on April 15, 1922, and the landlord concluded that, as a result of this agreement, Mrs. R... was excluded from the benefit of the law of August 2, 1924, which grants any tenant in good faith an extension until January 1, 1926.
However, the court, on the pleadings of Georges Bourgeon, ruled that any waiver of the benefit of the law of August 2 must be deemed unwritten, except in cases where it would have the effect of allowing the landlord to personally occupy the leased premises.
And since this was not the case, Mrs. R... obtained the requested extension.

THE WINNER'S PORTRAIT
Sao Paulo having won the Grand Prix de Deauville, its owner, Mr. Edmond Veil-Picard, wishing to commemorate this great day, commissioned a portrait of the winner from a painter, Mr. de la Morinière, to depict him at the very moment of his triumph, that is, finishing first by three lengths. These three lengths required a canvas of such dimensions that the painter felt he should set the price for his painting at 6,000 francs.
In his initial satisfaction with winning the race, Mr. Veil-Picard found nothing excessive in this price. But, upon reflection, he requested a discount. All the painter thought he could agree to was a discount of 10%, which brought the painting down to 5,400 francs. But they could not reach an agreement, and yesterday, the parties were arguing: Mr. Paul Guillain for the painter, and Mr. de Barandiaran for Mr. Veil-Picard.
The court, 14th Chamber, ruled in favor of the painter and ordered Mr. Veil-Picard to pay, in addition to the 5,400 francs, the duties and double duties that the tax authorities may claim on the sale.