Obligation of Means vs Result Safety in Business Contracts

Extract

[...] For example, the judgment n° 91-17.387 rendered on June by the third civil chamber of the Court of Cassation already made this distinction on the subject of a garage owner who had to repair the vehicle of his client. However, no precise framework is set to determine which obligation the entrepreneur is held to. We know that the means obligation obliges the entrepreneur to deploy their best efforts to achieve the defined objective. On the other hand, the result obligation imposes on the entrepreneur to achieve the objective. [...]

[...] This judgment allows for a slightly more precise framework to be established, in order to better distinguish between the means obligation and the result obligation. It is because the victim has a particular role that one or the other obligation is retained. This classic distinction criterion was confirmed by the judgment No. 15-25.249 rendered on November by the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. This judgment retains a result obligation when the victim has a passive role in the performance of the service. A contrario, if she has an active role, it's a means obligation. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation is then called upon to answer the question of how to distinguish between the obligation of means and the obligation of result in a business contract. The High Court of Cassation and the Court of Appeal annulled the judgment, which held that there was an obligation of result. According to the judges of cassation, the entrepreneur is held to an obligation of means, as soon as the client has an active participation, such as, in this case, the fact of descending a ski slope. [...]

[...] There was no snow, as skiing is practiced on snow. Thus, the existence of a security obligation at this location is strange. Perhaps the concrete base was at a place where skiers have a high speed and it may be difficult to avoid going off-piste. In the opposite case, the solution is strange. Why sanction the provider for not properly ensuring the safety of his clients at a place where they are not supposed to go? Perhaps because there was a serious bodily harm, the client's death. [...]

[...] Ass. plén May 1984, n° 79-16.612 Fullenwarth), nor a fault of the parents (Cass. Civ. 2ème February 1997, n° 94-21.111, Bertrand). Thus, it seemed logical that the Court of Cassation would extend the obligation of safety to accidents occurring off-piste, but still close to the piste. On the condition, of course, of retaining an obligation of means, due to the active role of the victim and the location of the accident. [...]