Insights

FrenchSupremeCourtSetsNewBoundary_Commentary

French Supreme Court Sets New Boundary to Liability Toward Third Parties

In Short

The Situation: The French Supreme Court recently considered whether a limitation of liability clause could be enforced against a third party to a contract claiming compensation for a breach of contract that caused it damage.

The Result: A third party to a contract who claims, on the grounds of tort law, that a breach of contract has caused it damage may be subject to the conditions and limitations of liability that apply between the contracting parties.

Looking Ahead: This decision reinforces the interest to provide for a limitation of liability clause, and the need to ensure that it is effective, in particular, by making sure that it does not contradict an essential obligation of the contract.

The Facts

In Itas Mutua v. Clamageran, the defendant, Clamageran, was appointed by Aetna Group France to handle and unload machines belonging to a related company, Aetna Group Spa. Following the damaging of one of the machines, Aetna Group Spa was indemnified by its insurer, Itas Mutua. The latter, being subrogated to the rights of Aetna Group Spa, sought compensation from Clamageran, which was responsible for damaging the machine.

In appeal, the court considered that Clamageran breached its duty of care and diligence and was responsible for the damage to the machine. The judges pointed out that Clamageran was liable under tort law, and not contract law, given the fact that Itas Mutua was exercising the rights of Aetna Group Spa, which was not a party to the contract. They added that the limitation of liability clause provided for in the contract between Clamageran and Aetna Group France was not enforceable since Aetna Group Spa was a third party.

Clamageran filed an appeal before the French Supreme Court and claimed that the limitation of liability clause should be enforceable against third parties when they invoke a breach of contract to obtain compensation under tort law.

The Law

On October 6, 2006, the French Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, known as the Bootshop or Myr'ho case, ruling that a third party to a contract can claim compensation under tort law on the basis of a breach of contract that has caused it damage.

The Bootshop case was firmly reaffirmed on January 13, 2020, when the French Supreme Court ruled that "a third party to a contract who establishes a causal link between a breach of contract and the damage it suffers is not required to prove a tort or quasi-tort separate from that breach."

Without calling the previous decisions into question, the Commercial Chamber of the French Supreme Court, in a decision rendered on July 3, 2024, set a significant boundary: Third parties may be subject to the conditions and limitations of liability that apply between the parties to the contract.

The Court justified its decision by its concern not to thwart the expectations of the debtor, who committed himself in consideration of the general economy of the contract, and not to confer to third parties a more advantageous position than that of the creditor himself. However, it remains to be seen whether this decision will be shared by the rest of the chambers of the French Supreme Court—the Commercial Chamber being the only chamber to have ruled on this issue.

In practice, large companies are increasingly sued by third parties on the grounds that an alleged breach of contract has caused them damage. In many cases, the company being sued could be facing bigger claims from third parties than from the actual party to whom it committed itself. For instance, IT companies providing services to a client can face major claims from interested third parties, such as their client's affiliates or customers.

In that respect, the business-friendly decision rendered by the French Supreme Court strongly reinforces the interest to provide for a limitation of liability clause, and the need to ensure that it is effective, in particular, by making sure that it does not contradict an essential obligation of the contract.

Two Key Takeaways 

  1. A third party to a contract can claim compensation if it has suffered damage as a result of a breach of contract without being required to prove a tort or quasi-tort separate from that breach.
  2. A contracting party whose liability is called into question by a third party may raise against the latter the limitation of liability clause provided for in the contract allegedly breached. 
Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.