Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts pp 379–403Cite as

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in France

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 380 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 36))

Abstract

Recent developments in French contract law reflect a greater focus on the balance of bargaining power before the conclusion of contract. Standard form contract is regarded as a criterion of unequal bargaining power, both in consumer law and in ordinary contract law. Nevertheless, the control of price terms is not subject to uniform and consistent treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the distinction between private autonomy and theory of party autonomy, see Rouhette (1965), p. 60.

  2. 2.

    Ripert (1949), no 63: “la rançon de la liberté”.

  3. 3.

    Code civil, Article 1674 s.

  4. 4.

    On this point, see Chantepie (2006).

  5. 5.

    Cons. const. 10 June 1998, no 98-401 DC.

  6. 6.

    Cons. const. 13 June 2013, no 2013-672 DC.

  7. 7.

    Ordinance no 2016-131 of 10 February 2016, JO 11 Feb 2016.

  8. 8.

    Oppetit (1995), p. 242.

  9. 9.

    Code civil, Article 1102(2) 2.

  10. 10.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 461-1.

  11. 11.

    Rouhette (1987), n 4.

  12. 12.

    “La liberté contractuelle ne permet pas de déroger aux règles qui intéressent l’ordre public”. Cf. Code civil, Article 6.

  13. 13.

    See, in particular, ECHR, 19 June 2006, Hutten-Czapska, Req. no 35014/97.

  14. 14.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993, L 95/29.

    Cámara Lapuente (2019).

  15. 15.

    CJEU Judgment of 4 June 2009, Pannon GSM, C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350. Addendum Code de la consommation, Article R. 632-1.

  16. 16.

    Directive 93/13/EEC, Article 3(2).

  17. 17.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 212-1(6).

  18. 18.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 212-1(6).

  19. 19.

    Code de la consommation, introductory article.

  20. 20.

    CJEU Judgment of 22 November 2011, Cape and Idealservice MN RE, C-541/99, EU:C:2001:625.

  21. 21.

    Code de la consommation, introductory article.

  22. 22.

    Civ. 1, 29 March 2017, no 16-10.007.

  23. 23.

    CJEU Judgment of 16 January 2014, Constructora Pincipado, C-226/12, EU:C:2014:10.

  24. 24.

    Sauphanor-Brouillaud (2013), no 596 ff.

  25. 25.

    Lagarde (2006).

  26. 26.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 822-4.

  27. 27.

    For a contract term deemed to be valid in the airline business, see Civ. 1, 26 April 2017, no 15-18.970.

  28. 28.

    Code de la consommation, Article R. 212-1(1), (3) and (6). The text covers 12 contract terms.

  29. 29.

    Code de la consommation, Article R. 212-2(3), (4) and (8). The text covers 10 contract terms.

  30. 30.

    Civ. 1, 3 Feb 2011, no 08-14.402.

  31. 31.

    Code de la consommation, Article R. 621-2, paras 1 and 2.

  32. 32.

    See, in particular, the Code de commerce, Article L. 442-6, I(1) which addresses the offence of “Obtaining, or seeking to obtain, from a trading partner any advantage unrelated to a commercial service effectively rendered or which is clearly disproportionate to the value of the service rendered”.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Cons. const., 13 Jan 2011, Dec no 2010-85 QPC.

  34. 34.

    See Court of appeal of Paris, 16 March 2018, no 16/04144.

  35. 35.

    Com., 26 April 2017, no 15-27.865.

  36. 36.

    Com., 8 June 2017, no 15-15.417.

  37. 37.

    See, in particular, Com., 3 March 2015, nos 13-27.525 and 14-10.907.

  38. 38.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 442-6, III.

  39. 39.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 442-6, III.

  40. 40.

    Cons. const. 13 May 2011, no 2011-126 QPC.

  41. 41.

    ECHR, 17 Jan 2012, GALEC v. France, 51255/08.

  42. 42.

    Com., 22 Oct 1996, no 93-18.632.

  43. 43.

    Code civil, Article 1110(2) 2.

  44. 44.

    See, in particular, Chantepie and Latina (2018), no 147 ff. and 443; Chénedé (2016), no 23.351 s.; Deshayes et al. (2016), p. 66.

  45. 45.

    Code civil, Article 1110(2), revised by Loi no 2018-287 of 20 April 2018.

  46. 46.

    Code civil, Article 1171, revised by Loi no 2018-287 of 20 April 2018.

  47. 47.

    Kessler (1943).

  48. 48.

    Code civil, Article 1171(2). 2.

  49. 49.

    Rochfeld (2004), p. 994.

  50. 50.

    Civ. 1, 3 June 2015, nos 14-13.193 and 14-13.194: terms limiting the period of validity of call credit in a contract providing for the installation of a telephone line with a prepaid card.

  51. 51.

    See, in particular, Court of Appeal of Toulouse, 25 Sep 2007, no 06/02410, refusing to control the terms of a private detective contract since “it can be seen from the work order produced that these terms have been drafted so that they are clear, and the brown colour of the paper, which includes darker and lighter shades of brown from the top to the bottom of the sheet, does not prevent the printed characters, some of which are in bold, from being clearly read.”

  52. 52.

    Civ. 1, 1 Oct 2016, no 15-20.060.

  53. 53.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 313-64.

  54. 54.

    Civ. 1, 29 March 2017, nos 16-13.050 and 15-27.231.

  55. 55.

    CJEU Judgment of 20 September 2017, Andriciuc and others, C-186/16, EU:C:2017:703. See also Cámara Lapuente (2019).

  56. 56.

    Court of Appeal, Paris, 16 June 2017, RG 15/21389, 15/23316 and 15/23333.

  57. 57.

    Com., 25 Jan 2017, no 15-23.547.

  58. 58.

    Com., 3 March 2015, nos 13-27.525 and 14-10.907.

  59. 59.

    Ass. plén., 1 Dec 1995, nos 91-15.578, 91-19.653, 91-15.999 and 93-13.688.

  60. 60.

    The same solution is also applicable in contracts for the supply of services since, if the parties do not reach an agreement prior to performance, the price can be set by the creditor, provided there is no abuse (Code civil, Article 1165).

  61. 61.

    See, however, Com., 15 May 2002, no 99-21.172.

  62. 62.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 410-2.

  63. 63.

    Code des assurances, Article L. 310-3. Cf. Code des assurances, Article L. 310-7.

  64. 64.

    Law no 81-766 of 10 August 1981 on book prices.

  65. 65.

    See, Decree 89-680 of 20 Sep 1989, JO 21 Sep 1989.

  66. 66.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 314-6.

  67. 67.

    Code civil, Article 1231-5.

  68. 68.

    Code de la consommation, Article R. 212-2(3).

  69. 69.

    Com., 27 May 2015, no 14-11.387: penalty clause creating a significant imbalance in a B2B contract.

  70. 70.

    Code de la consommation, Article R. 313-26.

  71. 71.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 121-17 which adds that, “In the event that the additional payment is the result of the consumer’s consent by default, that is to say, in the absence of explicit objections on their part to the separately priced options they did not request, the consumer may claim a refund of the amounts paid in respect of this additional payment”.

  72. 72.

    Written questions with answer no 60748, 15 July 2014, JOAN 2 Sept. 2014.

  73. 73.

    For an illustration, Court of Appeal, Grenoble, 1st Civil Chamber, 5 June 2012, no 09/00977.

  74. 74.

    See in particular, for care homes, Civ. 1, 3 Nov 2016, no 15-20.621.

  75. 75.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-68.

  76. 76.

    Decree 17 March 1967, Article 29.

  77. 77.

    Recommendations no 96-01 and no 11-01 relating to management company contracts. The Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consummation et de la repression des frauds also found very frequent irregularities (http://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/contrats-syndic-copropriete).

  78. 78.

    Decree 28 March 2015, Appendix 1.

  79. 79.

    Decree 17 March 1967, Article 29, final paragraph, revised by Decree 28 March 2015, referring to Appendix 2 of the latter text.

  80. 80.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 441-3.

  81. 81.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 441-6(1). 1.

  82. 82.

    Code de commerce, Article L. 442-6, I(9).

  83. 83.

    Com.., 1 June 1999, no 97-15.421.

  84. 84.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 112-1. By way of exception, “when the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance because of the nature of the goods or service, the business shall supply the price calculation method and, if relevant, all additional transport, delivery or postage costs and any other costs (Code de la consommation, Article L. 112-3(1). 1.

  85. 85.

    Code des assurances, Article L. 112-2.

  86. 86.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-3(4).

  87. 87.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-18(3) and (4).

  88. 88.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-30(3).

  89. 89.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-90.

  90. 90.

    Code monétaire et financier, Article L. 312-1-1.

  91. 91.

    Circ. 19 Jul 1988 implementing the provisions of the Decree of 3 December on consumer price information, JO 4 August 1988, p. 9951.

  92. 92.

    Code de la construction et de l’habitation, Article L. 134-3(2). 2.

  93. 93.

    Decree of 18 April 2012 relating to invoices for electricity of natural gas supply, their terms of payment and the terms and conditions for carrying forward or refunding overpayments, Article 5.

  94. 94.

    Decree of 13 December 2013 relating to invoices for electronic communications services and information for the consumer on usage under their plan, Article 5.

  95. 95.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 may 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2005, L 149/22.

  96. 96.

    CJEU Judgment of 7 September 2016, Sony Europe Limited, C-310/15, EU:C:2016:633.

  97. 97.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 314-1.

  98. 98.

    For the sale of LPG, see Code de la consommation, Article L. 224-18(5).

  99. 99.

    CJEU Judgment of 15 January 2015, Air Berlin, C-573/13, EU:C:2015:11.

  100. 100.

    Decision of 11 January 1999 on price information for funeral services.

  101. 101.

    Decision of 11 January 1999 on price information for funeral services, Article 3.

  102. 102.

    Decree of 18 April 2012 relating to invoices for electricity or natural gas supply, their terms of payment and the terms and conditions for carrying forward or refunding overpayments, Article 3.

  103. 103.

    https://www.prix-carburants.gouv.fr/.

  104. 104.

    http://www.energie-info.fr.

  105. 105.

    http://www.pour-les-personnes-agees.gouv.fr/.

  106. 106.

    https://www.tarifs-bancaires.gouv.fr/.

  107. 107.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 111-6.

  108. 108.

    Code de la consommation, Article D. 111-7.

  109. 109.

    Code de la consommation, Article L. 111-7.

  110. 110.

    Civ. 1, 4 Dec 2012, no 11-27.729.

  111. 111.

    Civ. 1, 29 Nov 2011, no 10-27.402.

  112. 112.

    Revet (2016), p. 5.

References

  • Cámara Lapuente S (2019) Control of price related terms in standard form contract in EU. The Innovative Role of the CJEU’s Case-law in the Review of Price-related Terms in Standard Form Contract, Section XX

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantepie G (2006) La lésion. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantepie G, Latina M (2018) Le nouveau droit des obligations. Commentaire théorique et pratique dans l’ordre du Code civil, 2nd edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chénedé F (2016) Le nouveau droit des obligations et des contrats. Consolidations – Innovations – Perspectives. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshayes O, Genicon T, Laithier Y-M (2016) Réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations. Commentaire article par article. LexisNexis, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler F (1943) Contracts of adhesion – some thoughts about freedom of contract. Columbia Law Rev 43:629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde X (2006) Qu’est-ce qu’une clause abusive? Étude pratique. Semaine juridique édition générale 2006(I):110

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppetit B (1995) La liberté contractuelle à l’épreuve du droit de la concurrence. Revue des sciences morales et politiques 1995:241

    Google Scholar 

  • Revet T (2016) Une philosophie générale? Revue des contrats 2016(HS):5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripert G (1949) La règle morale dans les obligations civiles, 4th edn. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochfeld J (2004) Les clairs-obscurs de l’exigence de transparence appliquée aux clauses abusives. In: Études de droit de la consommation, Liber Amicorum Jean Calais-Auloy. Dalloz, Paris, p 981

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouhette G (1965) Contribution à l’étude critique de la notion de contrat. thesis Paris, 1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouhette G (1987) La force obligatoire du contrat, Rapport français. In: Tallon D, Harris D (eds) Le contrat aujourd’hui: comparaisons franco-anglaises. LGDJ, Paris, p 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauphanor-Brouillaud N (ed) (2013) Les contrats de consommation. Règles communes. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lille, Faculty of Legal, Political and Social Sciences, Lille, France

    Gaël Chantepie

Authors
  1. Gaël Chantepie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaël Chantepie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  2. Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Pascal Pichonnaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chantepie, G. (2020). Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in France. In: Atamer, Y.M., Pichonnaz, P. (eds) Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23056-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23057-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation