Français German Chinese
avocats d'affaires paris
Home > News > 2018

01/10/2018 - Is the concept of “significant imbalance” introduced into the Civil Code, likely to weaken the franchise contract, where clauses have not been subject to negotiation?

Olivier Binder, partner, published an article in the last "EFL Newsletter".

Is the concept of “significant imbalance” introduced into the Civil Code, likely to weaken the franchise contract, where clauses have not been subject to negotiation?

As early as 2008, the French legislator introduced into the French Commercial Code the control of contractual balance, aimed at sanctioning any behavior characterized as having an intention to "subject or attempt to subject a commercial partner to obligations creating a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties". (Article L.442-6 I 2° of the French Commercial Code)

Thus, non-reciprocal clauses, restrictive clauses or clauses which do not have any countervailing benefits may lead the Judge to declare such clauses null and void, to award damages to the victim and, very rarely, to declare the entire contract null and void.

These unfair terms have been mainly found in con- tracts between suppliers and the central purchasing function of major food retailers, which use their market power and the absence of alternative purchasers that could list them, to impose unfair terms.

Such balance of economic power is not found in franchising, since the prospective franchisee may decide to join another network, if it is not satisfied with a franchisor’s proposal.

Above all, the transfer by the franchisor to the franchisee of identified, secret and substantial know-how and the need for the uniform application of the components of the know-how by all franchisees are objective reasons for the apparent imbalances in a franchise contract.

Since October 2016, the “significant imbalance” approach has been incorporated into article 1171 of the Civil Code.

While it is logical to consider that the Civil Code cannot apply in the fields already regulated by the Commercial Code, franchisors should endeavor to increase the negotiability of some clauses.

The introduction of the concept of significant imbalance in civil law reflects the legislator’s willingness to strengthen, in respect of standard form contracts, the control of the contractual imbalances.

The latest revised version of article 1110 of the Civil Code will enter into force on 1 October 2018. It defines a standard form contract as a “contract which contains a set of non-negotiable clauses, determined in advance by one of the parties. “

Franchise contracts may be considered as standard form contracts.

The quite normal imbalance between the rights and obligations of the franchisor and the franchisee result from specific features of the franchise relationship which cannot be attacked, whether on the basis of commercial law or civil law.

In this respect, several recent decisions have been rendered by the Court of Appeal of Paris in which clauses in franchise agreements have been upheld:

- Post-contractual non-competition clause in accordance with the Regulation on vertical restraints (Paris CA. 14/12/2016, n°14/14207): "the purpose of this obligation is to protect the former franchisor’s know-how and to prevent it from being disclosed in another network. It is therefore a restriction of competition justified by the object of the franchise itself”.

- Clause requiring the franchisee to make specific changes to its marketing materials (Paris CA, 22/11/2017, n°15/01067): “this obligation in hornet in the franchise agreement is justified, because it ensures the uniformity and common identity of the network and, consequently, its development, and it constitutes the counterpart to the transfer of the franchisor’s know-how. It is there- fore necessary for the balance of the contract".

- Clause relating to the initial franchise fee and the obligation for the franchisee to devote all of his time to the franchise operation. (Paris CA, 17/05/2017, n°14/18290)

The burden of proof of a significant imbalance lies with the franchisee, who must demonstrate, if necessary by means of material, precise and relevant evidence, that the franchisee was effectively deprived, during the pre-contractual period, from negotiating the terms of the franchise agreement with its franchisor (CA Paris, 20 December 2017, n°13/04879).

As for the franchisor, it will be able to demonstrate "the existence of the elements in respect of which the franchisee has benefited from, once admitted in the distribution network, in particular the transfer of know-how and assistance services". (Paris CA, September 3, 2014, n°12/09785)

Practical advice:

It seems important for the franchisor, in order to minimize any risk, to justify the legitimate imbalances that may result from the franchise agreement, by:

- Specifying in the preamble of the franchise agreement, the financial and commercial back- ground along with constraints and opportunities for each party;

- Creating links within the contract between different clauses in order to provide an objective justification for potential imbalances resulting from the need to protect the know-how, distinctive signs, homogeneity and reputation of the franchise network;

- Including in the franchise agreement a statement by which the franchisor and franchisee acknowledge having had the possibility to discuss the content of the franchise agreement

About EFL :

EFL (EuroFranchise Lawyers) is an Association of Independent European Franchise Lawyers. Members of EFL are the leading franchise lawyers in Europe and have undertaken research on the issue of disclosure of information to prospective franchisees. Click here to know more about EFL

Source : 

  •     

    Olivier Binder