Light Green Wall With Brown Accent Wall

v. Oracle software vendors are not carriers fast!

The legal battle between the automotive supplier to the software publisher has finally completed June 29, 2010. The decision of the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation is important. Through its broad scope, it exceeds the field of computer contracts to cover all the disclaimers. A reminder
pendulum jurisprudence (1) illustrates the value of this solution but dislike balanced (2).

1. The jurisprudential balance: conflict-failure-contradiction

By 1996 Chronopost with jurisprudence, the Supreme Court had deemed unwritten clause of limited liability of the carrier, since it had failed in its essential duty. In this case, it was to deliver folds within a specified period.

The High Court noted that: "the limitation of liability clause of the contract, which contradicted the scope of the commitment, should be deemed not written."

Once the breach, many dissatisfied customers tried to "jump" clauses limiting the liability of their providers.
is precisely what made Oracle Faurecia cons.

In this case, the software company had not fulfilled its commitment to deliver the V12 version of its software in September 1999. He had not done before either. In its ruling on February 13 2007, the Commercial Chamber ruled that, in the absence of force majeure, the failure of the delivery schedule by Oracle Corporation constituted "a breach of an essential obligation of a nature to obstruct the implementation of the disclaimer of repair. "

Failure delivery schedule was thus constituting the breach of an essential obligation of the supplier. And a "mere" breach had become enough.
But was not it going too far? And sacrificing legal certainty and forecasts of the contractors on the altar of defense of the weaker party, the client cheated ?
is precisely what we say is the Judgement of 29 June 2010.

The High Court said: "alone is deemed unwritten clause to repair that contradicts the essential scope of the obligation contracted by the debtor."
now to be discarded, the disclaimer must contradict the essential scope of the obligation. It must be devoid of any substance. A default is not enough.

Going back to the rule by law Chronopost.

2. A solution bitter but balanced: Publishers are not carriers fast

Undoubtedly, the decision of 29 June 2010 marked the end of recess. At least for dissatisfied customers.
And those who have suffered because of unfulfilled promises of time are legion. In the computer industry, projects and software delivered on time are rare. They imported to "moralize" the practice and punish bad faith.

Thus, the first case Faurecia aroused general sympathy, at least among the customers of IT.
However, the contract must not lose its strength and its effects must remain predictable. Only rare cases, "extreme" can justify forcing the contract by the judge, in particular by deeming an unwritten clause.
Wisely, the High court has backtracked June 29, 2010.

But the rule in 1996, plays in reverse.
The Chamber Business, the failure time is not in itself sufficient to contradict the essential duty of a software company.
The software industry is not that of rapid transit!

The binding force of contracts is thus emerged victorious from the battle with morality.

Users cheated (And unwise) are the losers.

More than ever, vigilance is needed before any signature.

The pre-contractual negotiations and their mysteries are still some good times ahead ...

Michael Pasotti - Lawyer at the Paris Bar
Paris, July 15, 2010