Machine interpretation of the French question — to understand, never to cite

Is Article 2, which defines a merchant as one who carries out commercial acts by nature as a profession, sufficient to exclude incompatible professions without referring to Article 9?

It is a question of whether the definition of merchant status avoids contradictions with prohibited professions.

Produced by a model, unverified. The original question, in French, is what stands. The evidence below is in its original language.

The provision in question

article 2 du Acte uniforme révisé portant sur le droit commercial général
article 9 du Acte uniforme révisé portant sur le droit commercial général

Evidence (original language)

Le commentaire souligne que l'article 2, combiné à la définition large de l'article 3, rend les conseillers juridiques commerçants, créant un conflit avec l'article 9.

Are the conditions laid down by Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the AUDCG for acquiring the status of trader (commerçant) properly drafted, and how should they be revised? · OHADA.com Doctrine

← Back to the original question

Is Article 2, which defines a merchant as one who carries out commercial acts by nature as a profession, sufficient to exclude incompatible professions without referring to Article 9?

The provision in question

Evidence (original language)

Is Article 2, which defines a merchant as one who carries out commercial acts by nature as a profession, sufficient to exclude incompatible professions without referring to Article 9?