FOREWORD: UNFAIR COMPETITION - PARASITISM - BREACH

Unfair competition and parasitism: Indifference of the intentional nature of the breach

Whereas the proof of fault must be admitted to ensure the success of an action in unfair competition, the nature of the misconduct is indifferent: it doesn’t matter if the fault has been committed intentionally or not. Nevertheless, this traditional solution seems to be called into question as far as parasitism is concerned. This is likely to lead to inexhaustible discussions on proof, about the voluntary character of the defendant’s economic behaviour, and to compromise its anchoring in unfair competition.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cradle of competition law in the French tradition, the theory of unfair competition is intended to apply where competition is free. It then appears as a projection of the law of civil liability on the law of the market and as one of the most beautiful praetorian constructions built from articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code. While proof of fault must be proved for the success of the action in unfair competition, it is irrelevant what the fault is, whether it is intentional or not. Contrary to what might be implied by the very expression "unfair competition", which is a mixture of morality and economy, unfair competition does not today require bad

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

  • Université de Perpignan

Quotation

Yves Picod, Unfair competition and parasitism: Indifference of the intentional nature of the breach, February 2016, Concurrences N° 1-2016, Art. N° 77745, www.concurrences.com

Visites 669

All reviews