{"id":4233,"date":"2021-02-01T15:57:53","date_gmt":"2021-02-01T15:57:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/?p=4233"},"modified":"2023-06-08T10:34:03","modified_gmt":"2023-06-08T08:34:03","slug":"a-proof-agreement-rejected-because-of-a-significant-imbalance-in-the-parties-rights-and-obligations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/une-convention-de-preuve-ecartee-en-raison-dun-desequilibre-significatif-dans-les-droits-et-obligations-des-parties","title":{"rendered":"A proof agreement set aside on the grounds of a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties."},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong><em>Cour d&rsquo;appel de Paris, P\u00f4le 5 &#8211; chambre 5, 7 janvier 2021,&nbsp;n\u00b0 18\/17376<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Pratique restrictive de concurrence et d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties<\/em>&nbsp;: <em>une convention de preuve stipulant que seul le syst\u00e8me d\u2019information du fournisseur fait foi entre les parties d\u00e9clar\u00e9e inopposable.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de vente \u00e0 distance avait conclu avec <a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;plusieurs contrats, incluant des conditions g\u00e9n\u00e9rales de vente, pour la distribution de colis \u00e0 ses clients. Suite \u00e0 des retards, elle a assign\u00e9 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;devant le tribunal de commerce de Paris notamment pour le non-respect des d\u00e9lais garantis. D\u00e9bout\u00e9 de ses demandes, elle a interjet\u00e9e appel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>L\u2019appelante soutenait que des clauses relatives \u00e0 la preuve cr\u00e9aient un d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties et devaient lui \u00eatre d\u00e9clar\u00e9es inopposables. La demande \u00e9tait fond\u00e9e sur l\u2019article&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/l\/texts\/codes\/LEGITEXT000005634379\/articles\/LEGIARTI000006232309?version=LEGIARTI000033612862&amp;source=decisionPageLink&amp;origin=C92249B10ABD24D9EB01D\">L.442-6<\/a>, I, 2\u00b0 du Code de commerce (d\u00e9sormais L.442-1,I,2\u00b0 du m\u00eame code), qui dispose qu\u2019\u00ab&nbsp;<em>engage la responsabilit\u00e9 de son auteur et l\u2019oblige \u00e0 r\u00e9parer le pr\u00e9judice caus\u00e9 le fait&nbsp;(\u2026) de soumettre ou de tenter de soumettre un partenaire commercial \u00e0 des obligations cr\u00e9ant un d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>La Cour d\u2019appel rappelle d\u2019abord que \u00ab&nbsp;<em>l\u2019existence d\u2019un contrat d\u2019adh\u00e9sion ne suffit pas \u00e0 caract\u00e9riser<\/em><em> la preuve de l\u2019absence de pouvoir r\u00e9el de n\u00e9gociation<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb et a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 <strong>que la soumission ou la tentative de soumission <\/strong>se d\u00e9duit de la d\u00e9monstration de \u00ab&nbsp;<em>l\u2019absence de n\u00e9gociation effective, ou de l\u2019usage de menaces ou de mesures de r\u00e9torsion visant \u00e0 forcer l\u2019acceptation impliquant cette absence de n\u00e9gociation effective<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>L\u2019impossibilit\u00e9 effective de n\u00e9gociation s\u2019inf\u00e8re de&nbsp;:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u00ab&nbsp;<em>clauses [] quasiment identiques dans tous les contrats conclus par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 cliente et se retrouvent dans l\u2019ensemble des contrats souscrits par des entreprises avec <a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a><\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb&nbsp;;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u00ab&nbsp;<em>la puissance de&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;dans le secteur de l\u2019acheminement des colis<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>La Cour rappelle ensuite qu\u2019en cas d\u2019existence d\u2019obligations cr\u00e9ant un d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre significatif, \u00ab&nbsp;<em>la preuve doit \u00eatre apport\u00e9e par la partie qui s\u2019en pr\u00e9tend victime<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb. <\/strong>Ce d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre &nbsp;peut se d\u00e9duire \u00ab&nbsp;<em>d\u2019une absence totale de r\u00e9ciprocit\u00e9 ou de contrepartie \u00e0 une obligation, ou encore d\u2019une disproportion importante entre les obligations respectives des parties<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb. La Cour pr\u00e9cise que \u00ab&nbsp;<em>les clauses sont appr\u00e9ci\u00e9es dans leur contexte, au regard de l\u2019\u00e9conomie de la relation contractuelle<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, les clauses litigieuses stipulaient que \u00ab&nbsp;<em>les diff\u00e9rentes informations fournies par le syst\u00e8me d\u2019information de&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;issues des flashages des colis, par&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>, lors des diff\u00e9rentes \u00e9tapes d\u2019acheminement [\u2026] font foi entre les Parties pour d\u00e9terminer l\u2019occurrence ou non d\u2019un retard<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>La Cour d\u2019appel rel\u00e8ve que le \u00ab&nbsp;<em>syst\u00e8me d\u2019information de La Poste&nbsp;pr\u00e9vaut sur tout autre \u00e9l\u00e9ment de preuve [\u2026]&nbsp;\u00bb <\/em>alors m\u00eame qu\u2019en d\u00e9pend \u00ab&nbsp;<em>[\u2026] la mise en jeu de sa responsabilit\u00e9 contractuelle&nbsp;[\u2026]<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb<em>. <\/em>Ces clauses \u00ab&nbsp;<em>font d\u00e9pendre le point de d\u00e9part du d\u00e9lai d\u2019acheminement d\u2019un colis exclusivement de son enregistrement dans le syst\u00e8me d\u2019information de&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;alors m\u00eame que <a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;s\u2019engage au respect de d\u00e9lais d\u2019acheminement minimum<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb. La Cour d\u2019appel juge que si&nbsp;\u00ab&nbsp;<em>un tel syst\u00e8me probatoire \u00e9tait admis, il en r\u00e9sulterait que celui sur lequel p\u00e8sent les obligations de r\u00e9sultat de ponctualit\u00e9 et de d\u00e9livrance des colis contr\u00f4lerait seul le respect de ses propres obligations&nbsp;<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>La Cour conclut que ces clauses \u00ab&nbsp;<em>cr\u00e9ent un d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties sans que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.doctrine.fr\/e\/ENT16C940FE751FA5700803?source=decisionPageLink\">La Poste<\/a>&nbsp;ne rapporte la preuve de la compensation de ce d\u00e9s\u00e9quilibre par d\u2019autres clauses du contrat<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb. La Cour rel\u00e8ve \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard que \u00ab&nbsp;<em>le traitement \u00e0 grande \u00e9chelle de la distribution de colis et la ma\u00eetrise des co\u00fbts induits par un tel type de traitement ne peut justifier que le syst\u00e8me d\u2019information permettant un tel traitement puisse \u00eatre seul retenu \u00e0 titre de preuve<\/em>&nbsp;\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>La Cour d\u2019appel d\u00e9clare en cons\u00e9quence les clauses litigieuses inopposables \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9&nbsp;cliente.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Cour d'appel de Paris, P\u00f4le 5 - chambre 5, 7 January 2021, no. 18\/17376 Restrictive practice of competition and significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties: a proof agreement stipulating that only the supplier's information system is authentic between the parties declared unenforceable. A distance selling company had entered into an agreement with ... <a title=\"A proof agreement set aside on the grounds of a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties.\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/une-convention-de-preuve-ecartee-en-raison-dun-desequilibre-significatif-dans-les-droits-et-obligations-des-parties\" aria-label=\"Read more about An evidentiary agreement set aside on the grounds of a significant imbalance in the parties&#039; rights and obligations.\">Read more<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10445,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites"],"brizy_media":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4233","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4233\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.poggi-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}