Object of the decision
The developer of a mobile application is not responsible for the delay if it is attributable to the customer.
The firm represented a company specializing in the computer programming sector in a dispute with its client. The latter had unilaterally and unfairly terminated the contract and sought a refund of the deposit it had paid to the company.
Very soon after the signing of the contract, disagreements arose between the parties.
According to the client, the company was unable to follow the project and was incompetent to carry it out:
– The mobile development company allegedly failed in its contractual responsibility by not respecting delivery deadlines. This deadline was previously included in a schedule provided by the company.
– The company allegedly failed to comply with the confidentiality clauses included in the contract, in that it had a translation of a document defining the project drawn up outside French territory.
– Finally, the client also raised a failure to comply with his requests.
To these grievances, the company had retorted that regarding the failure to meet deadlines, these were for informational purposes in the quote and had no contractual value. Moreover, there was no information regarding a deadline in the contract. Under French law, for unilateral termination of a contract to be justified due to non-performance, the non-performance must be considered sufficiently serious, to the point that a relationship between the parties becomes impossible. This was not the case here.
It was also found that the client did not provide clear information to enable the company to work in good conditions . The specifications drawn up by the client did not contain all the elements necessary for development, since it was necessary to develop a more detailed one later. Furthermore, since the specifications are the client’s responsibility, the latter cannot justify a breach of contract by the incomplete nature of the specifications.
After having considered all the grounds and arguments put forward by the parties, the judge dismissed all the opponent’s claims.
Thus, by judgment dated May 20, 2020, the Paris Commercial Court :
- Found that the conditions of the customer’s termination of the contract were at fault
- States that the company will keep the benefit of the deposit paid to it in order to compensate for the damage suffered
- Declares the parties to be unfounded in their broader and other claims and dismisses them
- The company remains entitled to a right to order the client to pay the amount set out in Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Orders the supplier to pay all costs of the proceedings, including court fees
- Orders provisional execution without provision of security
This decision is final.
