Business Contracts

Unlike a contract for services, which requires the contractor to perform work for the client, the purpose of a lease agreement is to procure the enjoyment of property. Article 1709 of the Civil Code defines a lease as a contract “by which one of the parties undertakes to allow the other to enjoy a thing for a certain period of time, and for a certain price which the latter undertakes to pay” . In  …

Lease agreement

Unlike a contract for services, which requires the contractor to perform work for the client, the purpose of a lease agreement is to procure the enjoyment of property. Article 1709 of the Civil Code defines a lease as a contract “by which one of the parties undertakes to allow the other to enjoy a thing for a certain period of time, and for a certain price which the latter undertakes to pay” . In many respects, therefore, the purpose of a contract for services and a lease agreement appears to be very different: in the case of the former, the performance of work for the benefit of the client; in the case of the latter, the temporary provision of property for the benefit of the lessee. However, the distinction between these two contracts is a complex one, particularly when the provision of the goods is accompanied by various services that are inseparable from the use of the goods. In order to determine the classification of the contract as a contract of services rather than a lease agreement, the courts verify whether the service provider who makes the item available to the other party oversees the use and operation of the thing, i.e. whether the contractor's performance is subject to a safety obligation  or whether the customer is in overall control of the item.

This reasoning was applied in particular to the performance of an automatic carwash contract. The courts thus hold that the operator of a carwash providing customers with an automatic gantry for the purpose of washing their vehicles is bound to said customers by a contract for services , and not a leasing of goods (louage de chose) within the meaning of Article 1709 of the Civil Code, provided that all the components of such a contract are present, i.e. a contractor (the machine operator), a client (the customer), work which the machine operator undertakes to perform for the customer by means of an automatic washing machine belonging to him, for which he determines the conditions of use and operation, and payment by the customer of a fee for the service provided . The contract of enterprise is duly characterized by the fact that the operator of the machine bears the risk of any incorrect positioning of the vehicle on it, from the moment he accepts that the customer places the vehicle in question there himself. As the automatic carwash contract cannot be classified as a contract for the hire of a thing, the victim cannot be accused of fault arising from a breach of his alleged obligation to return the carwash machine, even though such an obligation cannot arise solely from the contract for the hire of a work which he has entered into. In this case, the operator of the automatic washing machine, as a contractor who does not supply the material, is bound by an obligation of result with regard to the performance of his service, the very principle of the automatic machine being sufficient to demonstrate that the operation can be carried out by any person without requiring any particular qualification or skill, the automated system having to prevent any hazard in the course of operations by guaranteeing the achievement of the contractually promised result. It follows that the service provider must provide his customer with equipment that is in perfect working order, reliable and safe, and capable of cleaning the surface of the vehicle's bodywork, leaving the sheet metal and paint covering it in the same condition as when it arrived. The simple failure to achieve this result gives rise to a presumption of fault on the part of the operator, which can only be exonerated by proving the existence of an extraneous cause . This solution, enshrined by the Court of Cassation  as early as 2012, is subject to one limitation: the automatic liability of the carwash company extends only to damage caused by a failure to meet its results-based obligation, so that it is incumbent on the customer to demonstrate that the damage to his or her vehicle was caused by the carwash service .

The Court of Cassation has adopted the same approach, based on the risks involved in making the thing available, to define the legal framework for the practice of equestrian activities. It has ruled that unlike a horse-rental company, whose clientele is made up of riders who accept the risks involved in knowingly engaging in a dangerous sport, an organizer of horse-riding activities is an entrepreneur who caters to ordinary tourists, who know nothing about horse-riding, in order to provide them with the entertainment of riding a horse along a specific itinerary. The entrepreneur must therefore be held liable for the customer's fall, when the horse galloped instead of maintaining a walking pace, for having provided him with an animal that did not meet the required conditions, given the nature of the contract, when he failed to take all the necessary precautions .

CA Reims, 26 July 2005, LawLex202200008890JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ, 13 December 2012, LawLex201300000910JBJ; see also CA Nancy, 28 October 2010, LawLex202200004603JBJ; CA Metz, 14 November 2019, LawLex202200004600JBJ.

CA Reims, 26 July 2005, LawLex202200008890JBJ, above.

CA Reims, 26 July 2005, LawLex202200008890JBJ, specifying that, in the absence of characterized fault on the part of the victim or an extraneous cause, the operator of an automatic carwash cannot be exonerated from liability under the contract of enterprise, when the machine malfunctions, first during the wash, then when the program, which had begun, is suddenly halted for no apparent or even explained reason, before restarting even though the vehicle is no longer in its correct position.

Cass. 1re civ., 13 December 2012, LawLex201300000910JBJ: the operator of a carwash, as lessor of a structure, can only be exonerated from liability in the event of damage to a vehicle during the washing operation, if he proves that the damage is not the result of a fault oh his part.

CA Metz, 14 November 2019, LawLex202200004600JBJ; see also: CA Colmar, 21 March 2022, LawLex202200004598JBJ, holding that a claimant who fails to demonstrate that the damage to his vehicle was caused by the carwash must be dismissed.

Cass. 1re civ., 27 March 1985, LawLex202200004832JBJ; See also in this sense: Cass. 1re civ., 11 March 1986, LawLex202200004892JBJ; holding that the contractor is liable for an accident to a child when, despite the precautions he should have taken as a horse-riding operator, he failed to comply with the imperative obligation to keep the horses in at walking pace.

Business Contracts

286. Lease agreement

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

286. Lease agreement

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise