Court Ruling on Essential Obligation and Liability Limitation

Extract

[...] A first appeal is thus formulated in the Court of Cassation by Faurecia for gross fault, for having failed to meet the essential obligations of the contract, it complains to the judgment of not having analyzed its other demands. In a judgment of the commercial, financial and economic chamber of February the Court of Cassation cancels and annuls the judgment and sends the parties back to a Court of Appeal of referral. The Court of Appeal then applies the limiting clause of repair to condemn the Oracle company to pay 203,312 euros with contractual legal interest of 1.5% per month from January and to pay the costs of the proceedings. [...]

[...] Thus, the Court of Appeal has rightly considered that the limiting clause of liability did not empty the essential obligation of the Oracle company and the Court of Cassation declares that the means is not founded. Finally, in a second means, Faurecia argues that after the Court of Appeal found that the defendant company had failed to meet its essential obligation, it did not demonstrate any fault on the part of Faurecia that could have prevented Oracle from fulfilling its obligations, therefore the limiting clause of liability cannot apply, and therefore the Court of Appeal violated Articles 1134 and 1147 for the third time, as well as Article 1150 in addition. [...]

[...] But the notion of cause has lost its importance. V. Com June 2010, Faurecia II: The judgment we will study is a judgment of rejection rendered by the commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation on June It is the Faurecia II judgment and is related to the scope of the limiting clause of liability when that - ci contradicts the essential obligation of the contract. In this case, the Faurecia company sued Oracle for developing a software for the management of production and commercial management of the company, they agreed on a V12 software that had to be implemented before the year 2000, the companies then concluded 3 contracts (for licenses, maintenance, training contract) on May As an intermediate solution, Oracle had implemented an intermediate software, but it presented defects and she was unable to present the final software on time. [...]

[...] She then filed an appeal to the Court of Cassation against the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal of Rennes on December 2020. She complains that the judgment did not declare the revocation act illicit and did not accept her demands. The applicant bases her argument on the conclusions of the reporter of the Court of Appeal, she argues that the only purpose of the revocation of this donation was to escape the rules relating to the hereditary reserve and argues that the cause of the donation act is illicit and contrary to public order, by recognizing its validity, the Court of Appeal of Rennes has violated articles 1131 and 1133 of the Civil Code. [...]

[...] It is then up to the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation to wonder whether the liability limiting clause can apply in cases where the essential obligation is not fulfilled by the co-contractor. The Court of Cassation responds that the clause is considered not written only if the limiting clause of repair contradicts the scope of the essential obligation; however, the amounts agreed upon by the parties for compensation correspond to the distribution of risk for each of the parties. [...]