Legal Definitions - defense au fond en droit

The term defense au fond en droit, originating from civil law systems, refers to a specific type of legal argument. It is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an opponent's claim or defense, rather than a dispute over the facts presented.

Essentially, when a party raises a defense au fond en droit, they are arguing that even if all the facts presented by the opposing party are assumed to be true, those facts do not, as a matter of law, establish a valid legal claim or a legally recognized defense. It's a way of saying, "Even if everything you've said is factually correct, the law simply doesn't support your conclusion or provide you with a remedy based on those facts." This concept is similar to what is known as a "demurrer" in common law jurisdictions.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Contract Dispute: Imagine a situation where Person A sues Person B, claiming that Person B breached a contract by failing to deliver a specific item. Person A's lawsuit details the agreement, the promised delivery, and Person B's failure to deliver. Person B's lawyer might raise a defense au fond en droit, arguing that even if Person A's account of the agreement and non-delivery is entirely true, the alleged contract lacked a fundamental legal element, such as a clear intention to create legal relations or a valid exchange of value (consideration). Therefore, even accepting all of Person A's facts, no legally binding contract ever existed, and thus no breach could have occurred.

• Personal Injury Claim: Consider a scenario where an individual sues a local business, claiming they suffered emotional distress because the business's advertising campaign used a color scheme they found personally offensive. The business's legal team could respond with a defense au fond en droit. They would argue that even if the individual genuinely felt offended and experienced emotional distress (accepting these facts as true for the sake of the argument), the law does not recognize mere personal offense from an advertisement as a valid legal basis for a claim of emotional distress or damages. The legal standard for such a claim typically requires extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe psychological harm, which is not alleged here.

• Inheritance Claim: Suppose a person claims a right to inherit a significant portion of a deceased relative's estate, based solely on a verbal promise the relative allegedly made years ago, stating they would "take care of them" in their will. The executor of the estate, or other legal heirs, might present a defense au fond en droit. They would contend that even if the deceased relative did make such a verbal promise (assuming it to be true), the law governing wills and inheritance typically requires specific legal formalities, such as a written will signed by witnesses. A verbal promise alone, regardless of its truth, does not create a legally enforceable right to inheritance under the applicable statutes.