SFR convicted because of a contract with too small characters

The slaughtering company, which specializes in products with very short deadlines, decided to terminate its contract with the operator because it had not been informed about certain services.

Litigation dating back to 2014

Dated March 18, 2014, Trendiade Collet signs a contract with operator SFR to open 89 voice and data subscriptions.
56 days after the contract takes effect, the slaughterhouse uses a bailiff to challenge the contract. It indicates, in fact, that it is impossible for him to take advantage of SFR services.

The telephone operator does not respond, Tendriade Collet terminates his contract by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt to his intermediary SFD. This is the company distributing services SFR, which has approached Tendriade Collet.

In response, SFR requires shortly after 56 000 euros to Tendriade Collet. The sum corresponds to the current costs until the end of the contract which is 2 years. For SFR, the slaughterhouse does not respect the incident notification contract.

The first judgment between the two companies had given for winning Tendriade Collet with a conviction for SFR. The operator was ordered to pay 8,000 euros in damages.

A contract with too small characters

The Court of Appeal also confirmed this judgmentt, believing that Tendriade Collet did not know that SFR was unable to provide mobile coverage to the slaughterhouse premises.

At the time of the judgment, it was noted that on the 37-page contract, the incident notification part was in very small print. In addition, the judges felt that a contract of this type is practically not read in full.

Finally, the Court of Appeal referred to provisions of the code of commerce and the code of consumption, which obliges to provide information "Readable and understandable". However, this was not the case for the case between Tendriade Collet and SFR.
In this respect, SFR and SFD have been convicted: each company must pay 3,000 euros in damages at Tendriade Collet. As well as the appeal costs which are 4,000 euros.