I`m sorry, it`s so boring. There is no point in shooting down the messenger. There is no signature. It concerns only one person, not both parties. Therefore, this is not the case. The latter appealed ahead of the decision, since a distribution contract is concluded on the basis of an intuitu personae and that, consequently, the termination of the contract in the event of a change of management is done by law without abuse. The supplier also contested the length of the notice period granted. 1/ “Intuitu personae” is a global legal form as such, and “intuitu personarum” is not said to be a pity! This attempt to prove that “Personae” in this situation can be “plural” is so. Okay, the expression of the incredulous cut off, but I can`t even have my head around. (A weak argument in my opinion, but it`s neither here nor there.) There is always only one party from each side, and the treaty will be “intuiti personae” as far as each of them is concerned separately. It is necessary to affirm that the requirement must be reciprocal in the particular case of franchise agreements: the Court of First Instance rejected the arguments put forward by the supplier and recalled that it remained unchanged in the event of a total sale of all the shares in a company or a change of management due to the principle of autonomy of the legal person. In the absence of a clause automatically authorising termination in such situations and irrespective of the intuitu personae nature of the agreement, the agreement is therefore maintained. The Court of Cassation a contrario recognizes that it is possible to terminate a contract without notice if it contains a termination clause stipulating that a termination is possible in the event of a change of management.
In the second place, the French Court of Cassation explained that the duration of the notice granted would become a matter of concern on the day on which the person initiating the notification and that, despite the temporary maintenance of the conditions of purchase granted by the supplier, the fact that the distributor was invited to immediately cease the use of the logo and the trade mark, made the notice period uncertain. Despite this confirmation, the General Court took into account the five months of “effective and provisional maintenance of the well-founded commercial relationship” and withdrew it from the notice period deemed appropriate. . . .