Franchising: The Court of Cassation censures a decision of a Court of Appeal which held that the prejudice resulting from a breach of a pre-information obligation consists of the loss of opportunity to obtain the expected results whereas it comes to repairing the loss of a chance of not contracting or contracting in more favorable terms (Distribution Casino France/Asinat distribution)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. com, January 31, 2012, Distribution Casino France v/ Asinat distribution, n° 11-10834 Contractors disappointed by the profitability of the operation they have undertaken are also, once again this quarter, at the heart of the Court of Cassation's case law. After having censured, under Article 1110 of the Civil Code, a Court of Appeal for not having sought to determine whether, even in the absence of a breach of its pre-contractual obligation to provide information under Article L. 330-3 of the Commercial Code, the consent of a franchisee had not been determined by a substantial error on the profitability of the business activity (Cass.