Actualités du droit

The ongoing debate on the contractual or tortious nature of the action for damages arising from the abrupt termination of a long-standing business relationship continues to rage among legal scholars and before the courts.

Two recent decisions issued by the Cour de Cassation (French supreme Court) have indeed revived this controversy, which can have very concrete practical implications for business relationships between two companies, especially when they are established in different countries.

Whether the French regime under Article L. 442-1, II of the French Commercial Code may be invoked, the law applicable to the dispute, or the competent court to rule on the damage suffered – these are all questions faced by companies suffering from an abrupt termination of business relationships. And the answers may vary depending on the legal characterization of the action.

In today’s global economy, businesses increasingly operate across borders, entering into partnerships with counterparts on multiple continents and negotiating contracts governed by diverse legal systems. These global operations expose them to geopolitical, regulatory, and economic risks that are often difficult to predict.

When disputes arise, domestic courts rarely offer a satisfactory solution: proceedings are lengthy, cross-border service is complex, and the enforcement of judgments abroad remains uncertain.

In this context, international arbitration has emerged as a preferred method for resolving transnational commercial disputes.

In a decision published in the Bulletin on June 4, 2025, the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract law: The determination of the price lies exclusively with the will of the parties or, where applicable, a third party designated by them – but never with the judge.

This decision highlights the importance of complying with Articles 1591 and 1592 of the French Civil Code, which respectively provide that the price must be determined and identified by the parties, or left to the determination of a third party expressly designated for that purpose.

The European regulatory landscape on sustainability is entering a new phase. Following the adoption of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the European Commission introduced a legislative simplification package in February 2025, known as the “Omnibus” package, aimed at adjusting the scope and timeline of these landmark legislative acts.

Stated objective: Enhancing the competitiveness of European businesses while reducing their administrative burden, particularly for SMBs. According to European Commission estimates, the proposed measures could generate €6.3 billion in savings and unlock up to €50 billion in additional investments.

From world-renowned manufacturers of sophisticated machinery to modest businesses hiring a contractor to install air conditioning in their premises, any company may one day face a dispute involving complex technical issues requiring court-ordered expert investigations.

Such preparatory inquiries are, in fact, almost unavoidable in this type of litigation.

Companies must therefore understand how court-ordered expert investigations work to ensure they are conducted in a manner that respects their procedural rights.

In the business world, companies may suffer various forms of damage due to wrongful actions by competitors, partners, or other economic actors. Understanding the mechanisms of compensation is essential for businesses seeking to defend their interests.

It is, therefore, important to define the scope of compensable damage under French law, to identify the characteristics of damage that must be established to claim compensation, and to be aware of the types of damage for which companies can seek redress.