The Deterrent Effect of French Liability Law: the Example of Abusive Contract Terms

Abstract

EnglishMost civil and common law regimes rest on the principle of equivalence between the prejudice and the amount of damages allocated to the victim. This rule of compensation is particularly strict in French law and allows for no exception, whether in contract or in tort law. We question the efficiency of this rule in the specific case of abusive or unfair terms in consumer contracts. French law strictly forbids such terms in any contract signed by a professional party and a consumer. When found in a consumer contract, the forbidden term is removed from the contract, the rest of which remains valid, and the consumer can obtain damages to repair the prejudice in accordance with the rule of equivalence between damages and compensation. Based on the example of unfair contract terms, the paper raises the issue of the deterrent effect of French liability law. More specifically, we ask the following question: is the rule of equivalence between damages and compensation efficient to prevent unlawful behavior? We show that French consumer law does not efficiently prevent abusive contract terms from being enforced. More generally, we argue that the strict equivalence between damages and compensation does not create efficient incentives for the parties. We argue that the introduction of punitive damages in French law would serve as an efficient incentive device, namely in the presence of lucrative faults. francaisLa plupart des regimes de droit civil et de common law reposent sur le principe de stricte egalite entre le prejudice subi et le montant des dommages-interets alloues a la victime. Cette regle d’indemnisation, appelee le principe de reparation integrale du prejudice, est particulierement stricte en droit francais et n’admet que de tres rares exceptions. Cet article souleve la question de l’efficacite de la regle de reparation integrale dans le cas particulier des clauses abusives dans les contrats de consommation. Les clauses abusives, interdites dans les contrats de consommation, sont reputees non ecrites, etant entendu que le reste du contrat demeure valable. Le consommateur peut en outre obtenir des dommages-interets en reparation de son prejudice conformement a la regle de reparation integrale. L’article etudie l’effet dissuasif des regles de responsabilite civile dans le cas particulier des clauses abusives. Il s’agit notamment de determiner si la regle de reparation integrale permet de dissuader le professionnel d’inserer des clauses abusives dans le contrat. Nous montrons que le droit francais ne dissuade pas le redacteur du contrat de prevoir des clauses abusives. Plus generalement, nous soutenons que le principe de reparation integrale n’incite pas au respect de la loi. Nous soutenons que l’introduction de dommages-interets punitifs en droit francais constituerait un dispositif incitatif efficace, notamment en presence de fautes lucratives.