Given that the decision below (Rennes, 11 February 1993) found that on 27 August 1987 the firm Le Montparnasse, which was to run a hotel, entered into a contract with Alcatel for the hire of a telephonic installation for ten years and that when Le Montparnasse transferred its business in January 1990 and the transferee refused to accept the telephonic installation, Alcatel sued Le Montparnasse for the indemnity laid down in the contract for premature termination;

Given that Le Montparnasse criticises the judgment below for dismissing the defence that the contract and its appendages were void in view of the lack of a price fixed for some of the “services” whereas according to the complainant the requirement of article 1129 Code civil that the price must be determined or determinable is not met unless the price falls within sufficiently precise parameters, and for holding that because the factors affecting the price of any extensions of the installation were beyond the control of the parties, the price was perfectly determinable, without inquiring whether in view of the obscurity and complexity of the provision -- the contract of 27 August 1987 laid down that should the initial installation be extended the instalments payable would be increased in relation to any increase in prices charged by the supplier since the previous tariff was fixed or in the retail price index, and that in the event the retail price index should be temporarily suspended the variations contained in any substituted scheme or coefficient fixed by statute or regulation should be applied to any additional material or labour supplied for the installation if, as a result of “any circumstances whatever” the increased cost to the supplier could not be properly established – it was not impossible for the hirer, bound exclusively to the supplier, to work out how much extra he was to pay, and so deprived its judgment of legal basis; and furthermore because a contract is not valid unless the amount of its object is ascertainable, the court, in failing to ask whether when the prices payable under the supplementary agreements were the subject of free negotiations between the parties, those agreements being required whenever the initial installation had to be modified or extended, given that the hirer must resort to the supplier for any extension required for the installation which, under article 3 ad fin of the contract of 27 August, cannot be used until the instalment demanded by the supplier has been paid, the court of appeal gave a decision without any basis in law under article 1129 Code civil;

But given that article 1129 Code civil does not apply to the determination of the price, and that the court of appeal was not presented with any request for termination or damages on the ground that the price had been fixed inequitably, its decision was justified in law;

For these reasons DISMISSES the application for review.

Subsequent Developments

This note on subsequent developments will be translated into English at a later stage and reflects the legal situation as of October 2004 and will be translated into English at a later stage.

Assemblée plénière, 01/12/1995 (3 arrêts) : cf. Henri Capitant, François Terré, Yves Lequette, “Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence civile” (Dalloz, 2000, p. 42 à 58) : ces arrêts font “de la question de la détermination du prix, non plus une condition de validité du contrat mais une simple modalité de son exécution”, redéfinissant à cette occasion le rôle du juge : jusqu’alors, les contrats dont le prix était indéterminé étaient frappés de nullité. Désormais, la résiliation ou l’indemnisation vient corriger l’abus dans la fixation du prix. La jurisprudence antérieure, estimant que la détermination du prix était un élément essentiel du contrat se heurtait à de nombreuses difficultés pratiques, notamment lorsqu’il n’était pas possible de déterminer ce prix à l’avance. Les correctifs introduits par la jurisprudence concernant certains types de contrats n’ayant pas suffi, un revirement était nécessaire, d’où ces arrêts rendus par l’Assemblée plénière, redéfinissant la notion même de contrat.