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)

Exhibit 50

Recueil Dalloz 1997, page 64 
The sudden termination of established commercial relations can give rise to the liability of the 
perpetrator 
Didier Ferrier 
The sudden termination of established commercial relations can give rise to the liability of the 
perpetrator 
Continued contractual relations are not sufficient to establish the existence of a framework contract 
(Le contrat cadre, under the dir. Of A. Sayag, Litec, 1994; F. Pollaud‐Dulian and A. Ronzan, Le contrat‐
cadre par delà des paradoxes, RTD com. 1996, page 179) and as such can be interrupted at any time. 
However, the conditions of this interruption can reveal an abusive use of the right to cause it. 
As such, when the parties have maintained “an increasingly growing flow of business” for seven 
years, the sudden termination thereof by the buyer when it had no complaints against the supplier, 
leading him to believe their relationship would continue while negotiating with a competitor, and 
this supplier could only manufacture the products by anticipating reasonably foreseeable orders, 
constitutes an abuse of the right to put an end to these relations 
Strongly motivated by analyzing the conduct of the distributor involved, today the solution is 
strengthened by the new edition of article 36 of the order of December 1, 1986 (arising out of the 
law of July 1st, 1996, art. 36‐5: ”Gives rise to the liability of the perpetrator and forces him to repair 
the prejudice caused, the fact …. of suddenly terminating or interrupting without written notice, 
even partially, an established commercial relationship taking into account prior commercial relations 
…”). One wishes that applications arising out this legal provision would be equally well motivated. 

Key words :  
CIVIL LIABILITY * Personal deed responsibility * Legal abuse * Commercial relation * Sudden break 
*Framework contract. 

Recueil Dalloz © Editions Dalloz 2012