Vegeta And Bulma In Bed

RCA, the bill must be lawfully entered into with the owner

Supreme Court Judgement

SECTION III CIVIL December 2, 2010 - January 21, 2011, No 1408

the court ruled that the company is legally possible to impose the law of the contractor to ensure, through the policy in its own letterhead, the vehicle owned by another.


SECTION III CIVIL

Judgement December 2, 2010 - January 21, 2011, No 1408

Done right and

The Court noted that:

M. sued the company Commerciai Union Insurance said it was his right to obtain for the RC car, a vehicle registered to his mother (which he claimed that he routinely conducted) by the policy himself headed for another vehicle owned by him (and, therefore, with the same class of substance), the application received by the GDP of Glossop, was rejected by the Court of St. Maria CV

M. now proposes to appeal to the middle of four reasons and is not defended the company intimated;

notes, the first complaint contends that the claim was not on the conclusion of a new contract in favor of the third, but a recognition of the right to enter into an insurance contract also da parte di chi non è proprietario del veicolo ma ne è solo il conducente;

il secondo motivo sostiene la violazione degli artt. 1469 bis e segg. c.c., in quanto sarebbe vessatoria per il consumatore la clausola che impedisce di assicurare mediante la medesima polizza (e la medesima classe di merito) una vettura altrui ma pur sempre in uso del conducente;

il terzo motivo censura la scorrettezza processuale della controparte;

il quarto motivo censura la sentenza nel punto in cui ha condannato l'attuale ricorrente al pagamento delle spese dei due gradi del giudizio;

i motivi, che non fanno che ripetere quanto già sostenuto nei giudizi del merito, sono infondati in quanto il giudice, dopo avere ruled that the company is legally required of the contractor to ensure the right policy through a headed own the vehicle in another person's property, it's been the interpretation of the contract and ruled that it derives from the claim asserted by the insured, and has also with fair and logical reasoning, except the vexatious nature of the conditions of the contract, either pursuant to art. 1341 cc, both under Articles. 1469 bis et seq. cc;

as for costs of the proceedings, it is a legitimate consequence of the unsuccessful plaintiff;

the appeal must therefore be dismissed without having to provide in order to pay the costs of Cassation, in view the failure to defend the private parts.

PQM

dismiss the action.