*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Here is a very interesting decision, which shows the limits of the "L. 442-1 argument" in typically contractual disputes(i.e. outside the Minister's regulatory action). In this case, Mobilead had entered into a contract with France brevets with the aim, on the one hand, of strengthening and developing its patent portfolio and, on the other hand, of developing a licensing program. After France brevets had terminated the contract, Mobilead sued France brevets, challenging, among other things, the validity of the termination clause defined in the contract from the point of view of a submission to obligations creating a significant imbalance between the rights
CASE COMMENTS: UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES - DRAFTING IN ENGLISH - GENERAL ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT
Significant imbalance: The French Supreme Court approves the Paris Court of Appeal’s ruling that a contract could be negotiated despite its wording in English and that a contractual asymmetry can be justified by the general scheme of the contract (Mobilead / France brevets)
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.