The LUX company ordered an advertising film from PUB company, which failed to meet the specification sheet. LUX seeks forced execution and compensation for damages.
Extract
[...] Thus, the probable non-execution seems sufficiently serious. Over the phone, the company told her that its order book was full until the end of December and that it would have difficulty respecting the agreed-upon payment schedules with its clients. Thus, it seems clear, and even explicit, that the Bati+ company will not execute on time. Therefore, the construction company cannot demand immediate payment of the second installment of the work and Jeanne has the right not to pay the second installment of the work for the time being. [...]
[...] The various questions that arise are therefore subject to the new provisions of the Civil Code. A. Payment of the first installment and late interest The question that arises is whether Jeanne is required to pay the late interest claimed by the masonry company. Article 1219 of the Civil Code provides that party may refuse to perform their obligation, even if it is due, if the other party does not perform theirs and if this non-performance is sufficiently serious.' However, it is necessary to ask what constitutes a sufficiently serious non-performance. [...]
[...] 2 Jeanne, the creditor, wanted to renovate the facilities of the sports center she manages. To this end, she concluded a contract with the debtors' company, Bati+. The work was to be carried out in two stages. However, the masonry company failed to complete the work within the allotted deadlines. Today, the company is claiming payment from Jeanne despite the delays observed. Two questions therefore arise: we must ask ourselves if Jeanne is required to pay the interest on delay as well as the second installment of the work (II). [...]
[...] The 1er June 2023, the company PUB sent a commercial film explaining again to the company LUX the difficulties encountered. She sent the film a little in advance so that the company LUX could realize the problems. Finally, on July the company LUX notified the company PUB with a summons to deliver a film corresponding to the specifications within a month. The company PUB replied that it would be impossible for her to remake the film, all her subcontractors having been released. [...]
[...] In this case, a formal notice was served. Here, the advertising film was intended to serve the LUX company in its negotiations with the company's executives. Therefore, the loss of a contract worth 500,000 euros is directly attributable to the contractual breach of the PUB company for having to produce an advertising film corresponding to the specifications provided. Therefore, the LUX company will be able to obtain compensation for the damage suffered due to the lack of production of the film. [...]
