Article L 330-3 of the Commercial Code provides as following: “Any person who provides to another person a corporate name, trademark or trade name, by requiring therefrom an exclusivity or quasi-exclusivity undertaking in order to carry out their activity, shall be required, prior to the signature of any contract concluded in the common interest of both parties, to provide the other party with a document giving truthful information allowing the latter to commit to this contract with full knowledge of the facts”.
The Supreme Court, with decision of 7th July 2004, confirming the judgement of the Court of Appeal, on the one hand rejected the claimants’ request of refund for the operating costs, stating that their compensation (consisting in a fixed amount and a commission on sale) covered all the company’s costs and losses. On the other hand, the Court declared void the claim of violation of Article L 330-3 Comm. C., since Mr and Mrs X, who had been running petrol stations for several years, when concluding the said contract with Esso, had gained enough experience to be aware of the risks, the benefits and the economical effort implied.
