CASE COMMENTS: UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES - SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE - NOTION OF COMMERCIAL PARTNER - QPC

Significant imbalance: The Paris Court of Appeal refuses to transmit a priority question of constitutionality relating to the notion of "commercial partner" (Cometik / Parfip France)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Readers will recall that, in a decision handed down on 15 January 2020, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation made an important clarification concerning the notion of "commercial partner", within the meaning of the former Article L.442-6, I, 2° C. com. (Cass. com., 15 Jan. 2020, n° 18-10512 P, Concurrences 2-2020, p. 110, obs. J.-L. Fourgoux CCC 2020, comm. 43, obs. N. Mathey; JCP G 2020, 306, note F. Buy). Rejecting the narrow definition proposed by the specialized chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (CA Paris, 5-4, 27 Sept. 2017, No. 16/00671, AJ Contrat 2017, p. 535, obs. N. Eréséo; RTD com. 2018, p. 635, obs. M. Chagny: "a partner is defined as

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 Aix-Marseille

Quotation

Frédéric Buy, Significant imbalance: The Paris Court of Appeal refuses to transmit a priority question of constitutionality relating to the notion of "commercial partner" (Cometik / Parfip France), 3 March 2021, Concurrences N° 2-2021, Art. N° 100540, pp. 110-111

Visites 35

All reviews