Temps de lecture estimé (en minutes)

Delayed Delivery In his judgment of June 29, 2012, the judge considers that in view of its contractual obligations, the access provider was not bound by any deadline. The modem was intended to be made available to subscribers “subject to eligibility and availability”. The subscriber had been informed by email or on the Free website that the number of deliveries was limited due to manufacturing and delivery difficulties caused by the Fukushima disaster and that the delay could reach several months.

Free’s Delivery of Free V6: Contractual Obligations:-

Relying on Free’s general conditions of sale, the Lyon district court concluded that Free had not breached any obligation by delivering the Free V6 more than four months after the order. In the judgment issued on June 29, 2012, the judge determined that the access provider was not bound by a specific deadline according to its contractual obligations. The availability of the modem was contingent upon subscriber eligibility and product availability. The subscriber had been informed through email or the Free website about the limited number of deliveries due to manufacturing and delivery challenges caused by the Fukushima disaster. As a result, delays of several months were anticipated.

Compensation Request and Absence of Damages:-

Furthermore, the judge dismissed the subscriber’s claim for compensation, ruling that no damages were suffered. The subscriber already possessed a box, and therefore did not experience any inconvenience due to the delayed delivery. Additionally, the judge considered that there was no increase in prices that the subscriber had to endure.

In this case, the Lyon district court’s decision was based on the interpretation of Free’s general conditions of sale, which did not impose a specific timeframe for the delivery of the Free V6 modem. The court took into account the exceptional circumstances surrounding the Fukushima disaster and the resulting manufacturing and delivery difficulties. As a result, Free was deemed not to be at fault for the delay in delivering the product to the subscriber.

The judgment also highlights the court’s assessment that the subscriber did not suffer any damages that would warrant compensation. Since the subscriber already had a functioning box, there was no tangible harm caused by the delayed delivery. Additionally, the court emphasized that there was no evidence of an increase in prices that negatively impacted the subscriber.

This case serves as an example of how contractual obligations and the absence of damages can influence the outcome of a legal dispute. The court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining the terms and conditions of a contract, as well as considering the specific circumstances surrounding a dispute, in order to determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.