CASE COMMENTS: DISTRIBUTION – TERRITORIAL PROTECTION – GOOD FAITH DUTY

Franchising: The Versailles Court of appeals rules that a franchisee deserves a protection against any new implementation when the franchisor violates his good faith duty (Laforet Franchise / Ensemble et Toit)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article in French, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. After a long discussion, the solution finally settled in case law: a franchise agreement does not imply that exclusivity is granted to the franchisee if success can be achieved in the absence of such a stipulation (D. and N. Ferrier, Droit de la distribution, 7th ed, Lexisnexis 2014, No. 723). The Court of Cassation held in this connection that the absence of territorial exclusivity is not, in itself, such as to lead to the annulment of the franchise agreement (Cass. com., 16 Jan. 1990, no. 88-16421; D. 1990, somm. p. 369, obs. D. Ferrier), the latter being able to satisfy itself of the three elements recognised as participating in its essence:

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

Nicolas Éréséo, Franchising: The Versailles Court of appeals rules that a franchisee deserves a protection against any new implementation when the franchisor violates his good faith duty (Laforet Franchise / Ensemble et Toit) , 8 March 2016, Concurrences Nº 3-2016, Art. N° 80831, pp. 96-97

Visites 229

All reviews