acts:
The plaintiff, Anissa Payet, claimed that her former boyfriend, Alex Monthy, borrowed SCR 712,000 for the purchase of a motorboat and SCR 120,000 for a vehicle. Payet further alleged that it was agreed Monthy would transfer the vehicle to her in lieu of the debt, but this did not happen. Payet sought a total of SCR 932,000, including SCR 100,000 for moral damages. There was no written agreement to support her claim, and she relied on electronic conversations as evidence.
Issue:
Can the plaintiff prove her claim without a written agreement, given that the value exceeds SCR 5,000?
Are electronic communications admissible as evidence in this context?
Rule:
Article 1341 of the Civil Code: Any matter exceeding SCR 5,000 requires a document drawn up by a notary or under private signature. Oral evidence is inadmissible without such a document.
Article 1347 of the Civil Code: This rule does not apply if there is writing providing initial proof, which includes anything emanating from the person against whom the claim is made.
Section 15 of the Evidence Act: Admits statements contained in documents produced by computers if it meets certain conditions, including preventing unauthorized interference and ensuring proper operation of the computer.
Analysis:
Defendant's Argument: The defendant objected to the oral evidence, arguing it was inadmissible under Article 1341 because the claim exceeded SCR 5,000. The defendant also noted there was no written acknowledgment of the debt.
Plaintiff's Argument: The plaintiff contended that electronic communications, including CD recordings of their agreement, constituted a beginning of proof in writing under Article 1347 and were admissible under Section 15 of the Evidence Act.
Court's Consideration: The court considered whether the electronic recordings and information on CDs and pendrives could be printed and produced in court, thus constituting a beginning of proof in writing. The court also took into account the evolving nature of documentary evidence, acknowledging the shift from handwritten to typed documents and now to electronic records.
Conclusion:
The court ruled that electronic communications are admissible as a beginning of proof in writing under Article 1347 and Section 15 of the Evidence Act. The court allowed the plaintiff to rely on electronic evidence to support her claim.