Contract Law Reform Transition Rules

Extract

[...] The Court of Cassation does not dwell on the argument put forward by the applicant and declares it insufficient to trigger a cassation. However, it notes that the Court of Appeal relies on the new version of Article 1186 of the Civil Code to justify its decision, whereas this version of the article only applies to contracts concluded after October However, the contract in this case was concluded before, therefore, it must apply the old law. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeal is tainted with illegality and the Court of Cassation quashes and annuls this decision rendered by the Marseille proximity court on the grounds of error of law and not on the grounds exposed by the applicant, it is not a case of abusive breach of contract, but only a bad application of the law by the Court of Appeal. [...]

[...] This principle assumes that when a law comes into force, it applies immediately. It can produce legal effects as soon as it comes into force and applies throughout the French territory (except for exceptional regimes). However, Article 1 of the Civil Code provides for the different configurations fixing the entry into force of a law. One of them provides that the law can itself set its date of entry into force and thus provide on which date it can produce effects. [...]

[...] We understand by contract an agreement of will between two or more people intended to produce, modify, transmit, or extinguish obligations. This is the case of the employment contract concluded here. From then on, the two parties are committed to the contract. One to welcome the rugbyman in his club (in the conditions provided by the contract) as an employee and the other to play for the same club. One is the other's debtor of obligations and can see their contractual liability engaged if they fail to meet their obligations. [...]

[...] TD Civil Law > Session Introductory Session I. Case File document n°1: Civ September 2018 The judgment we will study is a judgment rendered by the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation on 19 September 2018. It is a judgment of cassation relating to the application of the ordinance aimed at reforming contract law over time. In this case, the applicant subscribed a 1-year renewable contract with an air conditioning company (SMATEC) to ensure the maintenance of her new installation purchased from the said company. [...]

[...] Finally, for contracts concluded after the first October 2018, we apply the law resulting from the 2018 ratification law. In this case, the contract concluded in 2012, we are then in the first hypothesis exposed, namely that we apply the old law, except for article 9 of the ordinance, which is directly applicable for interrogatory actions. Therefore, the applicable law is the old law (here, interrogatory actions do not interest so we will see what effects there will be on the dispute in this case. [...]