This book provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to distribution: exclusive purchase and exclusive supply, exclusive and selective distribution, motor vehicle distribution, franchises, commercial agents.

French Distribution Law

Even if the courts have for a long time recognized that for an ordinary termination reasons do not have to be provided, they have had a tendency to review the legitimate, inaccurate or deceptive character of the reasons where they were relied upon in support of the termination . However, the inaccuracy of the reason stated where the termination does not have to state reasons should not be held wro …

Reasons.

In principle, there is no requirement that reason be provided for the termination of an indefinite-term distribution contract . Where it complies with the contractual notice period , and if there is no contractual notice period, where it observes in any event a reasonable notice period , the supplier is not required to state reasons for its decision to terminate. Even under Article L. 442-1, II (former Article L. 442-6, I, 5º) of the Commercial Code, trading partners are not required to state reasons for the termination, where they comply with a notice period in line with past relations or customary practice . The solution is traditional; if an obligation to state reasons were imposed on the supplier, the latter would be deprived of the option to terminate the contractual relationship at any time. Insofar as the supplier is not required to state reasons for its decision, an abusive termination does not arise due to the mere fact of the termination of the contract of an exemplary distributor who has always reached its sales targets and carried out all required investments to promote the brand image  or because it comes about shortly after the filing of summary expert appraisal proceedings against the supplier to determine whether it has made any direct sales on the territory of the distributor . Relying on reasons afterwards cannot incur the supplier's liability .

T. com. Paris, 28 September 1989, LawLex200200005758JBJ; CA Versailles, 22 May 1998, LawLex200200004911JBJ; Cass. com., 6 June 2001, LawLex200200004370JBJ; 6 May 2002, LawLex200200004621JBJ; 1 July 2003, LawLex200300002868JBJ; T. com. Versailles, 14 November 2003, LawLex200300004429JBJ; CA Versailles, 14 October 2004, LawLex200500003779JBJ; CA Amiens, 13 October 2005, LawLex200700000377JBJ.

CA Paris, 11 December 1990, LawLex200200005815JBJ; CA Paris, 3 March 1995, LawLex200200004268JBJ; TGI Paris, 27 November 2002, LawLex200300000640JBJ; T. com. Versailles, 12 December 2003, LawLex200400000211JBJ.

Cass. com., 1 July 2003, LawLex200300002868JBJ. 

CA Paris, 3 July 2009, LawLex200900003270JBJ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 14 February 2008, LawLex200800001830JBJ.

CA Paris, 22 March 2002, LawLex200200004699JBJ.

CA Paris, 4 July 2018, LawLex201800001042JBJ.

CA Versailles, 22 May 1998, LawLex200200004911JBJ: the grantor is not required to state reasons for its decision to terminate the concession agreement and relying afterwards on grounds which are not deceptive cannot incur its liability.

No obligation.

Even if the courts have for a long time recognized that for an ordinary termination reasons do not have to be provided, they have had a tendency to review the legitimate, inaccurate or deceptive character of the reasons where they were relied upon in support of the termination . However, the inaccuracy of the reason stated where the termination does not have to state reasons should not be held wrongful. Thus, the Court of Cassation has reverted to a stricter application of the rule in that area: positive law now recognizes that the reasons for the termination do not matter where a reasonable notice period is observed .

Cass. com., 5 October 1993, LawLex200200006021JBJ: the grantor who intentionally relies on deceptive reasons abusively terminates the contract; Cass. com., 5 April 1994, LawLex200200005387JBJ; 25 October 1994, LawLex200200005419JBJ; 20 January 1998, LawLex200200005089JBJ; CA Versailles, 17 June 1999, LawLex200200000934JBJ; 25 November 1999, LawLex200200005254JBJ.

Cass. com., 1 July 2003, LawLex200300002868JBJ; 20 February 2007, LawLex200700000227JBJ: the ordinary termination of a dealer agreement does not have to state the reasons for it and the inaccuracy of the grounds relied upon to support a previous notice of termination which has not been followed up, does not characterize an abuse.

French Distribution Law

130. Reasons.

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

130. Reasons.

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