CASE COMMENTS: RESTRICTIVES PRACTICES – SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE – TERMINATION CLAUSE – TERMS OF PAYMENT

Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Meaux sanctions, at the Minister’s request, a termination clause and a clause relating to payment terms (Provera)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. How were the courts called upon to implement Article L. 442-6-I-2° of the Commercial Code going to interpret this rule which, clearly inspired by the consumer protection system against unfair terms, appears likely, because of its generality, to exert a strong influence on business contracts? After the initial findings of the Lille Commercial Court, in a judgment of 6 January 2010 (ConcurrencesNo. 2-2010, p. 99, obs. Mr. Chagny), this question - raised as soon as this controversial provision was adopted by the "law on the modernisation of the economy" - was then slow to receive a clear answer in the case law, due in particular to the suspension of

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

  • Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University

Quotation

Muriel Chagny, Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Meaux sanctions, at the Minister’s request, a termination clause and a clause relating to payment terms (Provera), 16 February 2012, Concurrences N° 1-2012, Art. N° 42376, pp. 130-131

Visites 776

All reviews