LConsumer law is built on the idea that the consumer is in a situation of inferiority in relation to the professional with whom he contracts. It therefore contains provisions more favorable to this “weak part” as common contract law or other special laws. It remains to be seen who can benefit from it: is a job seeker subscribing to a vocational training contract a consumer? This is the question posed by the following case.
On September 10, 2016, Odile X, a pharmacy technician, whose contract is coming to an end, decides to convert to naturopathy. She signs a training contract with the company Lomberget, which operates under the name School of Applied Naturopathy and Unconventional Medicine, in order to follow his courses for two years, every other weekend. The total cost is 7,700 euros (i.e., arithmetically, 148 euros per weekend), covered up to 800 euros by Pôle emploi.
Alas, Odile X only follows ten courses, because the place of training is “further away than expected, unheated, dirty”, and its content “unsuitable ». Arithmetically, she only owes 1,480 euros. But when, the 1er February 2017, she terminates her contract, the company claims 3,500 euros from her, an amount which includes a compensation clause, for the fact that she canceled without “reason of force majeure”, such as a serious accident.
Professional setting
In detail, the company claims: 2,310 euros deposit; plus 944 euros for the ten courses (i.e. a subtotal of 3,254 euros); plus 1,333 euros, an amount corresponding to 30% of the ” remaining amount “ (4,446 euros) to reach the total cost of 7,700 euros. Mme X refuses to pay.
On March 7, 2019, she was summoned before the Dôle district court (Jura). His lawyer argues that under the Consumer Code, Lomberget’s action is time-barred and the compensation clause abusive, therefore prohibited. He assures that the time limit for taking legal action was two years from the termination. L’article L218-2 actually says that “the action of professionals, for the goods or services they provide to consumers, is prescribed by two years”. And that the contract should have allowed cancellation for “legitimate and compelling reason”, without penalty, as the Court of Cassation has already ruled (11-27.766 and 15-25.468).
The court finds him wrong, September 5, 2019 : he judges that the contract is not subject to the Consumer Code. Indeed, as the latter points out in his introductory article, a consumer is a natural person who does not act for professional purposes. Gold, M.me X “acted in a professional setting”. The prescription is therefore that, five years, of common law, and the regime of unfair terms does not apply.
You have 31.11% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.