CASE COMMENT : RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – PARTIAL BREACH – NOTICE – DOUBLING NOTICE – PRIVATE LABEL – DAMAGE

Partial breach: The Paris Court of Appeal judges that a significant downturn in activity caused by the crisis does not correspond to a sudden termination of established business relations> (Darty & Fils/MBCO)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CA Paris, April 4, 2013, Darty & Fils v MBCO, RG 10/02735 Statistically, there are few cases in which an action for abrupt termination of established commercial relations is not upheld, on the grounds that it is actually the plaintiff in the action who is responsible for the termination (see Cass. com. 30 October 2006, SFR c/ HAP, No. 04-11956, comment M.-C. M. ; CA Montpellier, 22 January 2008, ALEX, SEG and EBL v/ Daimler Chrysler, comment M.-C. M.). Such is the particularity of the overturning judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal of April 4, 2013, which led the Court, in a context marked by the economic crisis,

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

Quotation

Mary-Claude Mitchell, Partial breach: The Paris Court of Appeal judges that a significant downturn in activity caused by the crisis does not correspond to a sudden termination of established business relations> (Darty & Fils/MBCO), 4 April 2013, Concurrences N° 3-2013, Art. N° 54001, p. 97

Visites 173

All reviews