Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 900

NOTICE by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) Translations of Foreign Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53, #54 Exhibit 54, #55 Exhibit 55, #56 Exhibit 56, #57 Exhibit 57, #58 Exhibit 58, #59 Exhibit 59, #60 Exhibit 60, #61 Exhibit 61, #62 Exhibit 62, #63 Exhibit 63)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

Download PDF
Exhibit 49 [ – Document]                         Page 1 of 2    RTD Civ. 1995 p. 885    Where the breaking of regular commercial relations is punishable    Jacques Mestre, Professor in the School of Law, Economics and Sciences of Aix‐Marseilles; Director of  the Business Law Institute [Institut de droit des affaires]    For seven years, each week the company Laiteries Bridel obtained its supplies from the company Debic  Saint‐Hubertus,  based  on  periodic  sales  contracts.  However,  two  months  after  being  approached  by  another  supplier,  it  abruptly  ended  those  regular  business  relations.  Debic,  which  had  formed  considerable  stores  that  had  become  useless,  then  sued  it  for  monetary  damages.  The  judges  on  the  merits rejected the claim, noting the lack of supply commitment subscribed for in its favor by Laiteries  Bridel,  but  the  commercial  chamber  (Jan.  7,  1992,  this  Revue  1992.394)  censured  this  by  reproaching  them for not having responded to Debic’s pleadings asserting that the break had been abrupt given that  it  had  built  up  a  store  intended  to  meet  these  orders.  The  court  of  appeal  to  which  the  case  was  removed  (Angers,  Feb.  5,  1993)  this  time  received  the  claim  from  the  abandoned  supplier,  and  the  commercial chamber, addressed again  (Feb. 28, 1995, Bull. Civ. IV, no. 63, p.  60), rejected  the appeal:  “the  ruling  notes  that  Bridal  had  had  an  ever‐increasing  stream  of  business  for  approximately  7  years  with  Debic;  it  adds  that  the  latter  was  required,  given  the  manufacturing  and  packaging  times  for  the  product, to build a store relative to the volume of the orders, which were generally placed only one or  two weeks before delivery; the ruling also holds that in March 1984, Bridel, which has not proven the  wrongful  behavior  imputed  to  Debic,  abruptly  terminated  its  purchases  from  the  latter  after  having  allowed  it  to  believe  that  their  relations  would  continue  normally,  although  it  had  entered  into  an  agreement  with  another  supplier  as  of early  January  1984;  in  light  of  these  observations,  the  court  of  appeal was able to find that Bridel had allowed its right  to terminate business relations with Debic  to  degenerate into an abuse.”    Several interesting lessons can be drawn from this fully‐stamped decision:    ‐  the  regular  conclusion  of  periodic  contracts  between  parties  of  course  does  not  cause  a  successive  performance framework agreement to be created between them, but is, however, of a nature to reduce  each party’s fundamental freedom to contract with the partner of its choice (on the affirmation of that  freedom, see Com. July 5, 1994, this Revue 1995.96);    ‐  this  is  particularly  the  case  when—as  in  the  case  at  hand—one  of  the  parties  is  in  a  situation  of  economic  dependence  relative  to  the  other  and  has  been  led  to  make  investments  with  a  view  to  maintaining the business relations between them;    ‐ a fortiori the abrupt cessation of these relations must be wrongful when an appearance of lastingness  had previously been maintained by the party now withdrawing.    That  being  said,  the  formula  used  by  the  commercial  chamber  (“the  court  of  appeal  was  able  to  find  that…”) nonetheless appears to us to imply a certain degree of caution in the commentary inasmuch as,  as  we  have  seen  recently  (this  Revue  1994.352  and  1994.603),  the  High  Court  is  clearly  hesitating  to  adopt a position of principle regarding the influence of the investments made by the distributor on the  producer’s ability to break in the neighboring field of concession contracts. In other words, everything  here  appears  to  relate  to  circumstance,  behavior  and  duration:  the  party  suffering  the  break  and‐id=REVUES&produit‐id=RTDCIV&ct...  1/25/2012  [ – Document]                         Page 2 of 2    claiming compensation is responsible for proving the age of the business relations and that its partner’s  attitude boded well for the future…    Keywords:  CONTRACT  AND  OBLIGATIONS  *  Termination  *  Open‐ended  contract  *  Unilateral  termination  *  Business relations * Abrupt break    RTD Civ. © Editions Dalloz 2012‐id=REVUES&produit‐id=RTDCIV&ct...  1/25/2012 

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?