*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Facts. In a sector, that of franchising, where the law on anti-competitive practices recognises the legality of restrictive clauses intended to maintain the common identity and reputation of the network, the law on practices restricting competition considers as suspect the common contractual identity which may result. Following an investigation conducted by the DGCCRF concerning a franchise agreement in the fast food sector (Subway brand), the Minister of the Economy brought an action before the Paris Commercial Court against the franchisor concerned, on the basis of the former Article L. 442-6, I., 2° of the Commercial Code (replaced by L. 442-1, I, 2°).
ALERTS: UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES – SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE - FRANCHISING
Significant imbalance: The Paris Commercial Court analyses a franchising contract in the fast food sector regarding the « significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations » pursuant to former article L. 442-6, I., 2° of the Commercial code (new L. 442-1, I., 2°) (DGCCRF / Subway)
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.