Author Archives: Henry & Bricogne

The Franchise Magazine website publishes an legal article of our law firm: “Breach of a franchise agreement by the franchisee with the complicity of a franchisor’s competitor: damages due by everybody” (17 April 2019)  

https://www.franchise-magazine.com/expert-franchise/tribunes/avis-expert-contrat-franchise-concurrence-reaffiliation-juridique-avril-2019

___________________________________________________________________

Our law firm is once again listed in 2019 in Best Law Firm ranking established by Décideurs Magazine in Antitrust and Anti-Competitive Practices as well as Distribution Law and Restrictive Practices. It is also this year in the commercial litigation ranking.

___________________________________________________________________

Publication of an article written by Xavier Henry in the legal journal Les Petites Affiches of March 12, 2019 about a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal of Paris on October 3, 2018 entitled “Franchise Agreement: analysis by the court of Paris of several behaviors and clauses” (LPA 12 March 2019, n ° 51, article n ° 142n8, p.5).

According to a judgment dated 3 October 2018, the Court of Appeal of Paris had to settle a dispute between a franchisor and a franchisee in the field of mass distribution which leads the court to examine several aspects of the franchisor / franchisee relationship such as the franchisee’s economic dependence vis-à-vis its franchisor, the practice of prices between the parties or the post-contractual non-competition clause. The answers given by the court on these various questions make it possible to broaden the legal analysis of relations between franchisors and franchisees and more generally between suppliers and distributors.

Contrat de franchise analyse par la cour d’appel de Paris de quelques comportements et clauses » (LPA 12 mars 2019, n° 51, article n° 142n8, p. 5)

___________________________________________________________________

Autoactu.com comments the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 23 January 2019 which confirms the car manufacturer’s right to refuse to contract opposed to a authorized repairer candidate. The car manufacturer was represented by our firm.

http://www.autoactu.com/reparateur-agree—la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-valide-un-refus-d-agrement–sous-condition-.shtml

___________________________________________________________________

31 January 2019. Law Awards ceremony organized by Décideurs Magazine: our firm received an Award in the rising team antitrust category.

__________________________________________________________________

Selective distribution: validity of a refusal to contract opposed by a car manufacturer to a former repairer (Paris Court of Appeal, January 23, 2019, n ° 16/16856).

By a judgment of 23 January 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that a car manufacturer represented by our firm was entitled to refuse to contract with a former repairer whose contract had been terminated with a two years’ notice since the refusal to contract did not have an anti-competitive object or effect.

The former repairer argued that because he fulfilled the qualitative standards of selection, he had to be approved again. This argument is rejected. The car manufacturer does not infringe the competition rules by not contracting with him. The manufacturer simply did not want to renew a partnership which did not satisfy him. The Court adds that, regarding competition on the car aftermarket, refusing to contract with a repairer candidate cannot have an effect on the market.

The car manufacturer has therefore not committed any anti-competitive practice.

It must therefore be understood from this judgment that a manufacturer may not have to contract again with a former repairer whose contract was terminated with a two years’ notice even if he fulfills the qualitative standards of selection (Arrêt Mazda CA Paris 19.01.23).

___________________________________________________________________

January 16, 2019. Publication on the Justice Village website of a legal article written by Xavier Henry entitled “Franchise contract: pre-contractual information is still in the case law events”.

Although the provisions relating to the pre-contractual information that must be provided before signing a franchise contract in particular are not recent since they derive from the Act n° 89-1008 dated 31 December 1989 known as ” Doubin Act “and decree n° 91-337 dated 4 April 1991, they continue to generate plentiful case law.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/contrat-franchise-information-precontractuelle-fait-toujours-actualite,30431.html

__________________________________________________________________