*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Abrupt break, ad hoc clarifications and conceptual uncertainties* Article L. 442-6, I, 5° is not sufficiently conceptualized and its application is still not consistent, as illustrated by a few selected points in three recent decisions. I. - Is the intended termination abrupt? Need for a written document. According to the judgment n°14/23934, and whereas the author of the termination considers that it is not brutal since its arrival was preceded by several events announcing it, the Court recalls the need for a writing. It thus underlines the indifference of the prior cessation of one of the activities between the parties, the importance of which was 'minor'
ALERTS: UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES - ABRUPT RUPTURE - PROOF - CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
Abrupt rupture: The Paris Court of Appeal clarifies the vague notion of an abrupt rupture (Atlis / FL Régie...)
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.