The significant imbalance of article 1171 of the French Civil Code gives way to article L. 442-1, 2° of the French Commercial Code
The law being silent on this point, it was possible to consider that any professional had an option allowing him to ground his claims on one article or on the other.
In a decision dated January 26, 2022 (n°20-16.782), the French Court of Cassation finally ruled on the relationship between articles 1171 of the Civil Code and L. 442-1, 2° (formerly L. 442-6, I, 2°) of the Commercial Code, both of which aim to sanction the existence of a significant imbalance in the contract. The Court of Cassation has definitively settled the question of the articulation of these two provisions, deciding in relation to a financial lease contract that article 1171 of the Civil Code applies to contracts not covered by article L. 442-1, 2° of the Commercial Code.
Applying the principle that special law derogates from general law, the Court of Cassation confirms the appeal decision concerning the applicability of article 1171 of the Civil Code to financial leases.
The Court states that the distinction between significant imbalance under civil and commercial law is not based on the status of the parties as traders, but on the nature of the contract, provided it is subject to regulations that place it outside the law of restrictive competition practices, which is covered by article L. 442-1, 2° of the Commercial Code (in this case, the financial lease contract was subject to the provisions of article L. 311-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code).
Article 1171 of the Civil Code will therefore apply to rare cases, including the said financial lease contract between a credit institution and a finance company. This solution should therefore apply more generally to « banking and financial organizations and activities », but also to commercial leases, relations between an economic interest grouping (EIG) and one of its members, and relations between a cooperative company of retailers and its members.
In a large majority of cases, the significant imbalance invoked by one professional against another is based on Article L. 442-1, 2° of the Commercial Code, applicable to « any person engaged in production, distribution or service activities » since the ordinance of April 24, 2019.
Two conditions must be met cumulatively: (i) submission or attempted submission and (ii) a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
In the above-mentioned decision of January 5, 2022 (see here the DGCCRF press release), the Court of Appeal declared null and void several clauses of the Pizza Sprint franchise agreement, including the clause on termination of the agreement in the event of a change of control of the franchisee, on the grounds that this clause did not provide for reciprocity in the event of a change of control of the franchisor (a sanction that appears to be questionable in several respects). The Court also declared null and void the supply and minimum stock clauses, the combination of which created a de facto commitment to purchase exclusively from a supplier belonging to the franchisor’s group; the Court noted that these two clauses were not balanced by other clauses in the contract and that their implementation was not justified in terms of preserving the homogeneity of the network or transmitting the know-how. Even if the scope of the sanction should be limited in this case because the franchisees did not seem to be aware of this ownership and the prices charged by the referenced supplier were well above the market price, it is clear that these cancellations create insecurity for the co-contractors and in particular for companies leading franchise networks.
As regards penalties, article L. 442-1, 2° of the Commercial Code provides that the perpetrator of the practice is liable in tort. The injured party, in addition to damages, may request the cessation of the practice, the nullity of the illegal clauses or contract(s) and the restitution of the benefits unduly received by the other party. The Minister of Economy can ask for a civil fine (e.g. €500,000 in the Pizza Sprint case), the cessation of the practices and the restitution of the undue advantages.
Bonjour,
Nous vous remercions pour votre message dont nous accusons bonne réception.
Nous reviendrons vers vous dans les meilleurs délais.
Bien sincèrement,
Altaïr Avocats