French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

When the conditions for entitlement to the standard notice period are not met , agencies can nonetheless claim a reasonable period of notice on the basis of Article L. 442-1, II (previously L. 442-6, I, 5°) of the Commercial Code by virtue of which “liability is incurred with the obligation to make good any damage by any person carrying out production, distribution or service activities who sudden …

Legal rules

When the conditions for entitlement to the standard notice period are not met , agencies can nonetheless claim a reasonable period of notice on the basis of Article L. 442-1, II (previously L. 442-6, I, 5°) of the Commercial Code by virtue of which “liability is incurred with the obligation to make good any damage by any person carrying out production, distribution or service activities who suddenly, even partially, terminates an established commercial relationship, in the absence of written notice which takes into account, inter alia, the duration of the commercial relationship, with reference to commercial practices or inter-branch agreements. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding the duration of the notice period, the liability of the party initiating the termination cannot be incurred on the grounds of insufficient duration if a period of eighteen months is respected. The provisions of the present section II do not preclude the possibility of termination without notice, in the event of non-performance by the other party of its obligations or in the event of force majeure”.

The application of Article L. 442-1, II, which is not excluded merely by the fact that the services provided are conceptual/intellectual , firstly of all requires the existence of a long-standing, “established” commercial relationship between the advertiser and the agency. The established nature of the relationship is not called into question by a lack of exclusivity and a guarantee of turnover . The launch of a call for tenders in the course of relations also does not render the relationship precarious insofar as the agency in place was selected and relations continued with no fixed term and without mention of a regular recourse to competitive award procedures . It had also been held that regular tenders between its various communications consultancies by the advertiser does not exclude the existence of an established relationship when it has maintained with each of them a normal and stable sustained flow of trade . The latter solution may however not always be applicable, the Court of Cassation having held that, in areas other than advertising, systematic competition for services is likely to make a relationship more precarious even if the usual service provider is always selected .

The notice given must take into account the duration of the previous relationships and the usual trade practices. The courts sometimes rely on the usage laid down by the standard form agreement of 1961 , but often this is judged inadequate with regard to the length of the contractual relationship. It has thus been held that the termination of an advertising contract binding the parties for thirty years required a notice period of eight months ; that twelve months' notice should be granted to an agency for relations for almost twelve years with his client  and that three months was insufficient to terminate a fourteen-year business relationship . On the other hand, a fifteen-month notice is sufficient to terminate a seventeen-year relationship, when the terminated agency was not bound by an exclusivity arrangement and, at the date of the termination has a diverse client base . Furthermore, prior relationships between a communications agency and a company belonging to the same group as its current client may not be added to the relations maintained with the latter for the purposes of calculating the duration of the notice period .  To be certain of avoiding liability, the  terminating party can now give eighteen months' notice, although that option may not be used frequently as it does seem disproportionately long when compared to standard-form contracts and to the decision-making practice in this area.

Notice must be effective. However, a mere decrease in the turnover of the claimant in the notice period does not establish a breach by the advertiser, even if at the same time it used the services of another agency, in the absence of any contractual commitment on the volume of activity . On the other hand, even when not bound by an exclusivity clause in respect of the agency, the advertiser cannot simply place a command for a paltry sum and consider itself to be in compliance with Article L. 442-1, II .  

Article L. 442-1, II expressly provides a waiver of notice for breach of contract. An advertiser who fails to show evidence of any grievances previously formulated against the agency and which has always validated the final proof without observation in previous campaigns, may not rely on this option . In addition, the breach in question must be of a certain severity. Breaches which are not sufficiently serious and following which the contractor is still willing to work with his agency cannot justify an immediate termination of the established commercial relationship . In addition, bringing advertising services in-house  or a change of strategy by the advertiser or the average results of advertising campaigns implemented do not constitute breaches by the agency justifying a termination of relations without notice .

CA Douai, 6 April 2000, LawLex200300000666JBJ upheld byCass. com., 3 December 2002, LawLex200300000572JBJ: the agency cannot claim the application of the standard agreement when it did not carry out all the services of a communications consultancy.

CA Paris, 20 March 2014, LawLex201400001745JBJ.

Cass. com., 11 March 2014, LawLex201400000482JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 March 2013, LawLex201300000452JBJ.

CA Versailles, 20 November 2012, LawLex201200002363JBJ, upheld byCass. com., 11 March 2014, LawLex201400000482JBJ, cited above.

CA Paris, 5 February 2015, LawLex201500000147JBJ.

CA Paris, 16 February 2012, LawLex201200000767JBJ.

CA Paris, 3 December 2014, LawLex201400001409JBJ, cited above.

CA Paris, 28 September 2018, LawLex201800001441JBJ.

CA Paris, 5 February 2015, LawLex201500000147JBJ, cited above.

CA Paris, 3 December 2014, LawLex201400001409JBJ.

CA Versailles, 27 October 2011, LawLex201100001729JBJ.

See Cass. com., 18 October 2017, LawLex201700001743JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 December 2005, LawLex200600000623JBJ; CA Versailles, 5 February 2009, LawLex200900003285JBJ.

T. com. Paris, 24 September 2001, LawLex200300002407JBJ.

CA Rennes, 22 May 2007, LawLex201200000848JBJ.

French Consumer Law

48. Legal rules

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

48. Legal rules

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