CASE COMMENTS : DISTRIBUTION - FRANCHISING - NON-COMPETITION OBLIGATION - EXCLUSIVE PURCHASING OBLIGATION

Obligations of the franchisee: The Paris Court of Appeal holds that the franchisee may be bound by exclusive purchasing and post-contractual non-competition obligations since such obligations have a limited scope (La Gadgetomanie ; Soho ; Grand Sud ; LFJ ; Distribution Casino France)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. com, November 24, 2009, LFJ c/ Distribution Casino France, n° 08-17650 The franchise agreement may impose on the franchisee non-competition obligations related to the economy of the operation, classically defined as the repetition of a commercial success through the application of commercial know-how under a well-known [1]brand name. Such obligations are limited in scope and sometimes even prohibited because of their anti-competitive effects. The result is an increasingly litigious situation. The former franchisee does not hesitate to challenge the validity of such commitments after the end of the contract, either to obtain the retroactive

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • University of Montpellier

Quotation

Didier Ferrier, Obligations of the franchisee: The Paris Court of Appeal holds that the franchisee may be bound by exclusive purchasing and post-contractual non-competition obligations since such obligations have a limited scope (La Gadgetomanie ; Soho ; Grand Sud ; LFJ ; Distribution Casino France), 17 September 2009, Concurrences N° 1-2010, Art. N° 30217, pp. 119-120

Visites 2621

All reviews