Written commercial agreement

Significant imbalance

Sudden termination of established relationships

Competition investigation – French law

Civil competition action

French competition law

Competition investigation – European law

European competition law

Vertical restraints

Distribution law

Liability for defective products

Consumer law

Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect

European business law

Corruption

Compliance

Economic law

Shareholders' agreements

Removal of company directors

Abuse of voting rights

Companies

Action for infringement (counterfeiting)

Rights conferred by the trademark

Patentability

Industrial property

Commercial rent review

Renewal of the commercial lease

Despecialization (change of use)

Commercial leases

Reform of contract law

Reform of the law of special contracts

Preliminary sales agreement

Obligation to deliver goods in conformity

Classification of the contract for services (contrat d'entreprise)

Effects of the agency agreement with respect to third parties

Business contracts

Ongoing contracts

Recovery claims

Court-approved transfer plan

Bankruptcy proceedings

Personal data breaches

White collar crime

Commercial law

500 Questions - Business Law

Pursuant to Article 1984 of the Civil Code, “the mandate or power of attorney is an act by which one person gives another the power to do something for the principal and in their name,” whereas under the terms of Article 1710, the contract for services is the contract by which one of the parties, the contractor, undertakes to do something for the other, the client, in return for payment. Although  …

What distinguishes a contract for services from an agency contract (contrat de mandat)?

The louage d’ouvrage contract (contract of works and labor) is defined in Article 1710 of the Civil Code as “a contract under which one party makes a commitment to perform a specific task for the other party in exchange for a price agreed upon by both parties”:

the party who orders the work is the project owner, sometimes called “principal” or “client” by case law or “owner” by Articles 1792-1, 1793, and 1796 of the Civil Code;

the party who performs the work is the “contractor” or “hired worker,” sometimes referred to by their profession, and also mentioned in Articles 1788 to 1791, 1795, and 1798 of the Civil Code under the designation of “worker”.

Originating from the classification of the Civil Code of 1804, the classification of a contract for work has been gradually replaced by the more modern term of contrat d'entreprise - contract for services, without completely disappearing. The imprecision of the provisions of Article 1710 and the classification of contracts for work and industry in Article 1779, which only narrowly considers the contract for works and labor, have led the courts to intervene to identify the essential characteristics of the contract for services.

What is the definition of a contract for services?

The contract for services is characterized by four essential criteria:

According to Article 1710 of the Civil Code, one of the parties, the contractor, undertakes to do something for the other, the client, in return for remuneration. The contract for services involves the contractor's performance of an obligation to do, as opposed to the obligation to give, which classically characterizes the contract of sale. Previously, the Civil Code of 1804 indeed distinguished between the obligation to give defined in former Article 1136, and the obligations to do and not to do, referred to in former Article 1142. This distinction was abandoned following the reform of contract law in 2016. According to case law, a contract for services is one that concerns not things whose characteristics are predetermined by the manufacturer, but specific work for the particular needs expressed by the client . The obligation to do, which characterizes the contract for services, may be accompanied by an obligation to give consisting of “the supply of materials.” In this case, the classification of a contract for services is not excluded, provided that the obligation to do is principal in relation to the obligation to give . In the event of multiple obligations, the obligations to do must be predominant for the classification of a contract for services to be retained .

To this obligation to perform, Article 1710 of the Civil Code adds that the contract for services must be executed in exchange for a price agreed upon by the parties . The contract for services thus falls into the category of contracts concluded for consideration as defined by the new Article 1107 of the Civil Code, which states that “the contract is for consideration when each party receives an advantage from the other in exchange for the advantage it provides.” Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, the contract for services is presumed to be concluded for consideration . A contract without consideration cannot, in principle, be classified as a contract for services . However, it is up to the party claiming the gratuitous nature of the contract for services to provide proof of it.

For the classification of a contract for services to be retained, it is up to the contractor to complete a work independently . The one who enjoys great latitude in the organization and performance of the work entrusted to them for remuneration, excluding any subordination relationship, is a party to a contract for services .

Finally, in addition to the independence of the service, case law has identified a final characteristic criterion of the contract for services, the absence of a power of attorney for representation by the contractor towards the project owner . The contractor performs the service independently, carrying it out in their own name and on their own behalf. However, if the contract for work does not automatically grant the project manager a power of attorney to represent the project owner, the finding of a special mandate to order additional work does not preclude the classification as a contract for services.

The contract that imposes on the accountant an obligation to perform, the purpose of which is to carry out a specific service remunerated by the client, is classified as a service contract.

CA Lyon, 9 June 2022, LawLex202200004103JBJ.

The contract that imposes on one party a principal obligation to perform, which consists of installing an insert provided by them at the home of the other party in conditions that comply with industry standards, constitutes a contract for services.

CA Bourges, 30 June 2016, LawLex202200004099JBJ.

The contract that provides for the acquisition and supply of a milking parlor must be classified as a service contract rather than a sales contract, as the obligations to perform the fitting out of the premises and the installation of the machine are predominant.

CA Pau, 29 March 2022, LawLex202200004217JBJ.

A contract can be classified as a contract for services when one party undertakes to perform a specific task for another party in exchange for remuneration.

Cass. 3e civ., 17 July 1972, LawLex202200003848JBJ.

A prior agreement on the exact amount of remuneration is not a condition for the formation of a contract for work, which is presumed to be concluded for consideration.

Cass. 3e civ., 19 January 2022, LawLex202200003661JBJ.

The contract by which a company entrusted a comic book artist and writer with the creation of the graphic universe of characters and the scripting of a film constitutes a contract for work and services, exclusive of any gratuitous intent, regardless of the fact that the price was not set at the time the contract was formed.

Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2019, LawLex202200004262JBJ.

The contract for services is the agreement by which a person assigns a contractor to execute a work independently.

Cass. 1re civ., 19 February 1968, LawLex202200003680JBJ.

The highly qualified person who, for remuneration, directs a construction site and acts as a project manager, being assisted either directly or through subcontracting by a laborer and a craftsman, paid directly by them, thus enjoying initiative and independence in the general conduct of the work, is bound to their co-contractor by a contract for services, and not by an employment contract.

The contract for services, relating to simple material acts, does not confer any power of representation to the contractor.

What are the essential characteristics of a contract for services?

Article 1779 of the Civil Code groups under the single designation of "hire of work and industry" three types of hires:

the service lease, which corresponds to the employment contract;

the carriage of carriers, that is to say, the transport contract;

the "hiring of architects, contractors, and technicians as a result of studies, estimates, or contracts," which covers the contract for services.

However, according to case law, the contract for services, governed by Article 1779 of the Civil Code, cannot be limited to the sole contract of hire by estimate and markets. The contract for services itself constitutes a category of contracts encompassing, in practice, very disparate activities.

The contract for the hire of work or services, as envisaged by the drafters of the Civil Code, refers to the execution of manual or mechanical work , which may consist of manufacturing, construction, incorporation, fitting, installation, shaping, transformation, repair, renovation, or maintenance of a thing, whether movable or immovable. The contract concerning the resizing of a ring , or by which a motorist entrusts their vehicle to a mechanic for the repair of the rear wheel bearings thus constitutes a contract for services.

Similarly, the architect, specifically referred to in Article 1779 of the Civil Code, is bound by a contract for services .

But the definition of a contract for services does not exclude intellectual work . A contract for services may, for example, have as its object:

studies, calculations, and execution plans for structural works ;

a service provision, of an artistic , digital , or legal  nature.

The agreement by which an undertaking is entrusted with the performance of a material service consisting of the manufacture of tanks equipped with plastic shells intended to replace metal tanks, according to precise specifications in terms of temperature, pressure, and impact resistance, is classified as a service contract.

CA Reims, 17 April 2018, LawLex202200004132JBJ.

The contract concerning a service consisting of resizing a ring constitutes a contract for services.

CA Metz, 24 February 2022, LawLex202200004220JBJ.

The contract by which a motorist entrusts their vehicle to a mechanic for the repair of the rear wheel bearings constitutes a contract for services.

CA Basse-Terre, 26 October 2020, LawLex202200004137JBJ.

The architect's contract is a contract for services that may include a design mission before the start of the construction site and concludes with the consultation dossier for companies before the selection of the project owner, but also execution missions that often consist of monitoring the work and its compliance with the studies. The architect is responsible for any failure or poor execution of their obligations within the limits of the missions entrusted to them and the obligations set out in the contract with the project owner.

CA Lyon, 30 November 2020, LawLex202200004141JBJ.

Intellectual work consisting of the provision or performance of services without material participation in the construction of the work is not excluded from the definition of a contract for services.

Cass. 3e civ., 28 February 1984, LawLex202200004136JBJ.

CA Paris, 5 May 2000, LawLex202200004606JBJ.

The agreement by which one party entrusts the other with the execution, in full independence, of the creation of drawings as part of the film production project constitutes a contract for services.

Paris, 28 February 2017, LawLex202200004258JBJ.

The contract for IT services by which one party is entrusted by another with the task of managing an application that generates product reports for clients is classified as a service contract.

CA Paris, 10 December 2015, LawLex202200004144JBJ.

The chartered accountant is neither the agent nor the employee of their client, to whom they are bound by a contract for services.

Cass. 1re civ., 4 May 2012, LawLex202200004108JBJ.

What is the purpose of the contract for services?

The contract for services and the contract for sale seem, at first glance, quite distinct:

the contract for services is limited to work performed for remuneration and implies an obligation to act;

The sales contract involves the delivery of an item and implies an obligation to transfer ownership.

As clear as this distinction may seem , the risks of confusion between these two contracts are real. Indeed, it may happen that a transfer of ownership results from the conclusion of a contract for services, particularly when the contractor provides the materials in addition to their work. The question then arises as to whether the contract in question is a simple sale or rather falls under the classification of a contract for services.

Faced with these difficulties of classification, case law has developed criteria to distinguish the contract for services from the contract of sale.

Initially, relying on the accessory principle, the Court of Cassation weighed the work performed against the materials provided, with the classification of a sales contract prevailing over that of a service contract if the “materials” element outweighs the “workmanship” element, and vice versa . When neither prevails over the other, the Court of Cassation classified the contract as a complex agreement involving both a contract for services and a sale of supplies .

From now on, the economic criterion concerning the respective value of labor and material has been replaced by that of “specificity,” which involves determining whether the good was manufactured specifically for the client, and recognizing the existence of a contract for services in such cases. The approach based on specificity has since been repeatedly upheld by the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation . Thus, a contract for the supply and installation of engines on a fishing vessel constitutes a contract for services, not a sales contract, as it involves specific work intended to meet the particular needs of the client, rather than predetermined items. Conversely, the supply by one company at the request of another of specific work conforming to market requirements is not sufficient to conclude that it acted as a contractor rather than a mass seller. Indeed, if the good was manufactured in series or in advance, in a standardized manner, case law considers it a sale .

When the object of the contract is not the performance of work but the supply of a generic item, will the contract be classified as a sales contract, and not as a service contract.

Cass. com., 27 November 2001, LawLex202100006383JBJ.

The contract by which a person provides both their labor and movable objects intended to integrate into the family decor is considered a sale as long as the labor constitutes the ancillary.

Cass. 1re civ., 27 April 1976, LawLex202100006400JBJ.

The agreement by which an undertaking commissions another to construct a thermal power plant constitutes a complex agreement that includes both a contract for work and a sale of supplies.

Cass. 3e civ., 16 March 1977, LawLex202100006459JBJ.

The contract by which an undertaking orders a distillation installation from another is a contract for services and not a sales contract, as long as the order was made based on technical characteristics and descriptions agreed upon in advance between the parties, the installation must comply with a technical specification, the project owner has defined the operating conditions of the installation as well as the objectives to be achieved, reserves the right to carry out various inspections, and thus the contract concerns specific work for the particular needs expressed by one party and not on predetermined items.

Cass. com., 4 July 1989, LawLex200600002119JBJ.

Does not constitute a contract for services but a sales contract, a contract relating to the manufacture and supply of a new rotor, as the information provided by the buyer only represented the minimum essential information for examining the request, which did not reflect specific requirements involving particular manufacturing. The price set and agreed upon by the parties with reference to the seller's general terms and conditions did not include the installation of the rotor, and thus the contract did not concern specific work intended to meet the particular needs of a client but rather predetermined items.

Cass. com., 5 December 2018, LawLex201900002105JBJ.

How to distinguish between a contract for services and a contract for sale?

Sales contracts and service contracts are subject to very different legal regimes.

Regarding the validity of the contract, the price is a determining element of the sale, whereas it is different in the case of a service contract, which does not require the parties to set the price at the time of the contract's conclusion. Thus, a contract in which the price has been agreed upon by the parties with reference to the seller's general conditions is a sales contract.

When the service entrusted to an undertaking characterizes a service contract, and not a sales contract, neither the breach of the obligation of conformity delivery, nor the warranty against hidden defects, nor the legal warranty of conformity provided for by Articles L. 217-1 et seq. of the Consumer Code can be invoked against it, except in the case of a contract concerning the supply of a movable good to be manufactured or produced.

Regarding the transfer of risks, in matters of sale, “the transfer of ownership entails the transfer of risks of the item” (Art. 1196, para. 3, Civil Code), in a contract for services, when the contractor provides the material, they must bear the risks of the item in case of destruction of the work.

Advice: To avoid being bound by the seller's warranties, argue that the service entrusted does not consist of the mere delivery of a thing, but in a complex operation that meets a particular need.

What is the difference between the legal regimes governing contract for services and contracts for sale?

In a contract for services, the contractor is required to perform work. In a bailment agreement, the depositary must, pursuant to Article 1915 of the Civil Code, keep the item for its return. Besides this difference in nature, these two contracts differ in their legal classification: the bailment agreement is a real contract (Art. 1109, para. 3, Civil Code) whereas the contract for services falls under the category of consensual contracts, which are formed “by the mere exchange of consents, regardless of the mode of expression” (Art. 1109, para. 1, Civil Code).

Despite this seemingly clear distinction, the case law remains fluctuating, sometimes retaining a single classification as a contract for services or a bailment agreement, and sometimes successively applying both through the accessory principle .

Difficulties in classification arise particularly in two cases:

The project owner entrusts an object to a contractor for intervention, with the latter being imposed the obligation, characteristic of the deposit contract, to keep and return the entrusted item, with the consequence of being liable in case of non-performance or loss of the entrusted item. In this regard, the contract providing for the delivery of a vehicle to a mechanic for repair has given rise to abundant litigation. In this scenario, the mechanic generally enters into a service contract since they are tasked with a repair. However, in addition to this repair, the contract imposes, as an ancillary obligation, the delivery, custody, and preservation of the vehicle before and after the work is performed by the mechanic. Under which contract (service or deposit) can the mechanic's custody service be remunerated or their liability engaged, knowing that the deposit contract is, pursuant to the provisions of Article 1917 of the Civil Code, essentially a gratuitous contract, unlike the service contract? Without even referring to the deposit contract, the Court first considered that the mechanic who, on the occasion of the service contract they entered into, fails in their obligation to take care of the vehicle entrusted to them for repair as a prudent person, engages their liability in case of theft of the equipment placed inside it. It then stated that the existence of a service contract does not exclude the contractor from also being bound by the obligations of the depositary. Then the Court of Cassation posited that the deposit contract of a vehicle with a mechanic should be considered ancillary to the service contract for repair and that, in this context, it should be presumed to be for consideration . The courts now consider that the deposit contract of a vehicle with a mechanic exists, as it is accessory to the service contract, independently of any custody agreement .

The contract involves providing care to preserve the deposited item, with the obligation of preservation and surveillance being another characteristic obligation of the deposit contract. The courts consider, for example, that a horse boarding contract is a paid deposit contract , the horse training contract, a service contract , and the contract providing both accommodation and a horse training obligation for enhancement, a mixed contract, which is partly analyzed as a service contract and partly as a paid deposit contract . If the animal is injured in its stable, the damage occurs within the scope of the care and accommodation obligation and falls under the deposit contract; if it occurs during training or the horse's use, it relates to the service contract.

Advice: If the classification of the contract as a bailment is upheld, argue that the damage incurred is not attributable to any fault by the bailee (dépositaire).

The contract for depositing a vehicle with a mechanic is presumed to be for consideration when the vehicle has been delivered to the mechanic, within the scope of their commercial activity, to allow for amicable or judicial expert operations, and when the mechanic notifies the vehicle owner in writing of the chargeable nature of the deposit.

CA Rouen, 5 January 2017, LawLex202200004542JBJ.

The contract for depositing a vehicle with a mechanic, being accessory to the initial service contract, is formed despite the absence of a storage agreement between the parties, so that the depositary cannot have their claim for payment of storage fees rejected.

CA Toulouse, 22 September 2010, LawLex202200004568JBJ.

The contract for boarding a horse for a fee is a paid bailment agreement.

CA Poitiers, 7 June 2013, LawLex202200004521JBJ.

The contract by which a horse is entrusted to a trainer constitutes a service contract, resulting in a best-efforts obligation for the trainer to use their knowledge and skills to improve the horse's sporting performance. Therefore, it is the horse owner who invokes the exception of non-performance to refuse to pay the agreed price, who must prove a fault by the trainer, and not the trainer who must establish that they have properly fulfilled their obligation.

CA Angers, 9 February 2010, LawLex202200004510JBJ.

The contract by which the depositary undertakes both a training mission and a care and accommodation mission for the animal, in return for payment, is partly analyzed as a service contract and partly as a paid deposit contract.

CA Caen, 30 October 2018, LawLex202200004555JBJ.

How does the contract for services differ from the bailment agreement (contrat de dépôt)?

Pursuant to Article 1984 of the Civil Code, “the mandate or power of attorney is an act by which one person gives another the power to do something for the principal and in their name,” whereas under the terms of Article 1710, the contract for services is the contract by which one of the parties, the contractor, undertakes to do something for the other, the client, in return for payment. Although they differ by certain criteria, these two contracts have an identical object, namely the performance of an obligation to do something, the content and scope of which, sometimes unclear, can be a source of confusion and lead to difficulties in classification.

The contract of mandate traditionally relies on the criterion of representation  whereas the contracts for works and labor (louage d'ouvrage) contract  does not automatically grant the project manager a mandate to represent the project owner . According to the Court of Cassation, the agreement by which individuals give authority to a real estate specialist to entrust the construction of their house to the contractor of their choice, while specifying the type, plan, and price of said construction, constitutes not a contract for services, but an agency agreement insofar as it grants the right to perform a legal act on their behalf.

The contract for services and the agency contract also differ in the nature of the acts performed. While the contract for services excludes any power of representation, it is also based on the performance of material or intellectual acts, which distinguishes it from the agency contract that necessarily involves the execution of a legal instrument  .

When doubts persist regarding the classification, the courts examine the role and duties of each contracting party to determine what, within the same service, pertains to the contract for services and the agency contract. The architect, bound to the project owner by a contract for services as they oversee and control the work, also acts as an agent for the latter when tasked with concluding work contracts on behalf of the owner. Conversely, a travel agency acts as an agent when its role is limited to issuing airline tickets, so its liability cannot be engaged in the absence of fault.

Lastly, the proof of an agency agreement and a contract for services differs: the existence of a contract for services may be proven by any means, whereas in the case of an agency agreement, testimonial evidence is admissible only under certain conditions .

Advice: If unable to obtain payment from the project manager, assert the existence of an apparent agency contract from the latter to obtain payment for your service from the project owner.

The agency agreement , which is the act by which one person gives another the power to do something for them and in their name, is only formed by the acceptance of the agent.

Cass. 3e civ., 4 March 2021, LawLex202200003679JBJ.

The real estate development contract, governed by Article 1831-1 of the Civil Code, differs from service and construction contracts in that it involves a paid representation mandate entrusted to the developer. The developer is responsible, for an agreed price and through service contracts, for carrying out a construction program, for a specific remuneration independent of the agreed price, and for conducting or having conducted all or part of the legal, administrative, and financial operations contributing to the construction.

CA Rouen, 19 May 2021, LawLex202200004777JBJ.

The agreement concluded between private individuals and a specialist who can provide them with a varied choice of houses with payment facilities, by which the former have authorized the latter to entrust the construction of their home to the contractor of their choice, constitutes not a contract for services, but a contract of agency, insofar as it grants the latter the power to represent them in order to perform legal acts on their behalf.

The mission of an architect who, having created sketches for the construction of a building, delivered significant work following repeated requests from their client, does not constitute a contract of mandate for which testimonial evidence is admissible only under certain conditions, but a contract for the hire of work, the existence of which can be proven by any means.

Cass. 1re civ., 17 December 1964, LawLex202200003924JBJ.

The contract for services requires the contractor to perform work for the benefit of the client, while the lease contract aims to provide the enjoyment of a property. The lease of goods is defined by Article 1709 of the Civil Code as a contract “by which one of the parties undertakes to allow the other to enjoy a thing for a certain time, and for a certain price that the latter undertakes to pay.” The object of the contract for services and the lease agreement therefore seems, in many respects, very different: the performance of work for the benefit of the client for one, the temporary provision of a property for the benefit of the lessee for the other.

The distinction between these two contracts can, however, be difficult, particularly when the provision of the item is accompanied by various services and benefits that are inseparable from the use of that item. Thus, to determine whether the classification of a contract for services should be favored over that of a lease, the courts verify if the provider who makes the item available to their contracting party exercises supervision over the use and operation of that item, in other words, if the performance of their service as a contractor is coupled with a safety obligation or if the client has control over the item .

This reasoning has notably been applied in the context of the performance of an automatic vehicle washing contract. According to case law, the operator of a car wash station that provides customers with an automatic gantry for the washing operation is bound to said customers by a contract for  services. As a contractor who does not supply the material, the operator is subject to a performance obligation regarding the execution of the service. It follows that this provider must make available to their client equipment that is in perfect working order, reliable, and safe, capable of ensuring the cleaning of the vehicle's body surface while leaving the bodywork and paint covering it in the same condition as upon arrival, with the mere failure to achieve this result imposing a presumption of fault on the operator, from which they can only be exonerated by proving the existence of an external cause .

The Court of Cassation adopted the same risk-based approach related to the provision of the item to define the legal framework for equestrian activities. Thus, according to the Court of Cassation, unlike the horse rental service whose clientele consists of riders who knowingly accept the risks involved in engaging in a dangerous sport, the organizer of horseback rides is an entrepreneur who caters to ordinary tourists, ignorant of horseback riding, to provide them with the experience of a horse-back ride along a predetermined route .

Advice: To exclude any classification as a lease of goods (louage de chose), argue that the provider who makes the item available is bound by a safety obligation, so that they bear the risks associated with its use.

The contract for making a washing device available to the public does not constitute a lease of a thing, within the meaning of Article 1709 of the Civil Code, but is analyzed as a service contract, duly characterized in this case, even if the contractor does not perform the work themselves and takes no personal part in providing the service, since, as the operator of the device, they bear the risks of a potential incorrect positioning of the vehicle on it, as they accept that the client places the vehicle there themselves.

CA Reims, 26 July 2005, LawLex202200008890JBJ.

The operator of a car wash station, as a contractor, can only be exempt from liability in the event of damage to a vehicle during the washing operation if they prove that the damage is not attributable to their fault.

Cass. 1re civ., 13 December 2012, LawLex201300000910JBJ.

The organizer of the rides must therefore be held responsible for the client's fall, whose horse started galloping instead of staying in line, for having provided an animal that did not meet the required conditions, given the nature of the service contract involved, while failing to take all necessary precautions.

Cass. 1re civ., 27 March 1985, LawLex202200004832JBJ.

What are the differences between a contract for services and a lease agreement?

The employment contract and the contract for services share the common feature of performing work for another party in exchange for remuneration. However, the employment contract is distinguished from the contract for services by the subordinate relationship it creates between the employer and the employee.

Indeed, while a contract for services is defined as the agreement by which one person entrusts another to execute, independently, a work for an agreed price, without granting any power of representation, an employment contract is characterized by a person's commitment to work for and under the direction of another, in return for remuneration. Thus, according to the Court of Cassation, as soon as in a contract one party commits to another to perform a specific task for remuneration, without a legal subordination relationship , the classification of a contract for services is retained and that of an employment contract is excluded. Legal subordination cannot be characterized by a situation of dependency, nor by a relationship of trust, or even close collaboration or coordination, between a business owner and a service provider who has freely agreed to have their personal business take charge, within the framework of a commercial contractual relationship, of managing the legal disputes that the company in question wishes to outsource.

It is generally up to the person claiming the existence of an employment contract to establish it, knowing that the classification of an employment contract is often sought because it allows the employee to benefit from the protection of social laws. The role of the judge is to assess a body of evidence; the existence of an employment contract depends neither on the will expressed by the parties nor on the name they have given to their agreement, but on the actual conditions under which the workers' activity is carried out. Regardless of the terms used by the parties, a contract can always be reclassified as an employment contract if the conditions of performance and organization of the work demonstrate that an employment relationship has been established between the parties .

Advice: To rule out the classification of an employment contract, argue that the service provider has maintained its independence in performing the tasks entrusted and that there is no legal subordination relationship between it and the client.

In the absence of a statutory definition, an employment contract exists where a person undertakes to work on behalf of and under the direction of another person in return for remuneration, thus giving rise to three elements: the performance of work - which may relate to the most diverse tasks (manual, intellectual, artistic work, etc.) in all professional sectors ; remuneration - consideration for the performance of work, regardless of whether it is paid in money or in kind and calculated on a time, piecework, or commission basis -; and legal subordination — the decisive criterion common to both labor law and social security law -which cannot be equated with economic subordination and may result from various constraints or obligations imposed by the employer (place of work, working hours, provision of equipment, availability of staff, integration into an organized service).

CA Riom, 13 October 2020, LawLex202200004780JBJ.

A mason affiliated as an employer with the Urssaf, who, describing himself as a contractor, was tasked, according to an agreement concluded for a fixed price and bearing the mentions “the client” and “the contractor,” with building a villa for the account and on the land of his co-contractor who provided him with the plans and materials, is bound to the latter by a contract for work, and not a contract of employment, as he used his own construction equipment while using said plans without making reservations, thereby maintaining his independence in the execution of the work.

Cass. 3e civ., 2 October 1979, LawLex202200008824JBJ.

500 Questions - Business Law

453. What distinguishes a contract for services from an agency contract (contrat de mandat)?

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

453. What distinguishes a contract for services from an agency contract (contrat de mandat)?

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