*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Unrequited benefit and costs of participating in a tender* Facts and procedure. A company had been providing surveillance and guarding services for nineteen Monoprix stores since 2002. In 2013, a framework contract of indefinite duration formalised this situation. In 2015, Monoprix launched a call for tenders for the service. The security company was given two months' notice of termination in the event that its application was not selected at the end of the tender. It was selected for 11 outlets and a new, lower price scale was applied for the future relationship for the entire "Monoprix market", i.e. for services provided to both the selected outlets and
ALERTS: DISTRIBUTION – ABUSE OF ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE – CENTRAL CONTRACTING AGENCY – SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE – ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS – NULLITY / VOIDNESS – PUBLIC ORDER – BUYER POWER – REBATES – SUDDEN BREAK OF ESTABLISHED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
Advantages without counterpart: The Paris Court of Appeal denies a service provider from its action against a company member of a distribution group company for having obtained an advantage consisting in administrative costs for the organization of a call for tenders (PSI Grand Sud / Monoprix)
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.