Extract
[...] The jurisprudence thus specifies that the clause becomes invalid if it has the consequence of deprivingpossibleto franchise the franchisee, propertyfranchisee of his business assets, of the'ensemble of his clientisthe and the'empêcher d'exercer sa profession (CA Paris nov BRDA 5/85). In contrast, if the clientle est essentially attachede to thethe clause may three consideredise like theisgitime. Minor In the'espisthis, the disputed clause provides that the franchisee himselfengage, aprisat the end of the contract, at not to exercise any'activityis concurrent in the premises concerned, for a durationfor a period of one year. On the form, this clause appears to meet the classic conditions of validity: it is limited in time, in the'space, and targets a direct competitive activity. [...]
[...] Major In law, any natural person who starts a business in their own name is subject to to several legal and regulatory obligations prior to this. First and foremost, the'article L. 123-1 of the Commercial Code imposes to all commercialçhas been registered in the trade register and companiestis (RCS) within fifteen days of the start of the'activityis. Since the simplification of administrative procedures reform, this registration, as well as the'in connection with the declaration of thebut of'activityare, must isthree redalisis by the'intermeditor of the single electronic window as provided by the'article L. [...]
[...] The bisnoefficacy of full right of the automatic patrimonial protection theistherefore as soon as'he exercises as'individual entrepreneur. It does not'so is not required to create a companytheit is to protect his personal assets. However, this protection will only apply if : - it does notdoes not grant any guaranteereturnis personal to the landlord, the franchisor or to a creditor - it respects the disclosure obligations on its commercial documents - it does not mix the assets. conclusion Theentrepreneur individual benisficie d'ores and déalready ofa legal automatic protection of his personal assets. [...]
[...] Concerning the wife, it is indicated qu'she co-acquired the fund. However, it does not'it is not established that'she participates at son exploitation, nor that'she has the quality of commercialcante. In application of the jurisprudence precitis, the mere fact that'having participated in thepurchase of the fund is not enough to him confto improve the quality of commerante. Thus, the conclusion of the pris nota step, for her, the characterisabout d'a business act, and she will not be able to isthree assignmentswill appear before the commercial court. [...]
[...] The lease may in fact contain a clause'agrelement or a prohibition of assignment. Quant at the assignment of the franchise contract, the jurisprudence has precisit is that, the franchise contract being concluded intuitu personae, it is therefore necessary that the consenting parties at the transmission of the contract (Com June 2008, n° 06-18.007 and CA Paris 19-11-2009 n° 06/22121). Minor In the'espisce, the business assets, which groups des élelements intangible (clientèlease, right to lease, sign, etc.) and corporeal (material, furniture, etc.), therefore falls into the category of goods that can be brought in kind, Theentrepreneur exercises in his own name. [...]
