News october 2024: A supplier may prove and claim for the payment of its debt against an uncooperative client based on its sole issued invoices
- Reminder
Proof is key whenever it comes to grounding one’s claim. And quite often, the burden of proof is heavy to bear. However, in some cases, it may be facilitated in the companies’ best interest. This is particularly reflected through a recent decision of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) ruling of June 26, 2024 (n°22-24.487), which has confirmed the admissibility of elements such as invoices to substantiate a debt.
In this case, the factual circumstances were as follows:
- The company Rubis Avignon has opened a client account to Mr. K.
- Following several unpaid invoices, Rubis Avignon’s payment order was duly acknowledged by the judge. Nonetheless, this payment order was challenged dues to Mr. K. being placed in receivership.
- In its decision, the seized Court of Appeal considered that the supplier (ie. Rubis Avignon) could prove the delivery of his goods to its customer by producing invoices, delivery notes and a customer account statement, even though some of those documents were not signed by the customer.
- Main take-aways from this decision
This decision is worthy of interest in that it gives a clear distinction between requirements to prove a “legal fact” or a “legal act” and thus highlights the possibility for a supplier to evidence its debt, even in the absence of a formal signed contract.
As a reminder, under French law:
- Legal acts shall be proven in writing (with duly signed documents) if the amount exceeds 1,500€ or by any means if the amount is lower.
- legal facts, may be proven by any means. Freedom of proof prevails here.
In the precited case, in order to object to the claimed amount, the debtor customer argued that:
- the supplier was not entitled to raise, as proof of its debt, a customer account statement, invoices drawn up by himself, and delivery notes which did not bear the customer's signature (in this scenario, only 5 out of 25 delivery notes were bearing the customer's signature) ....
- … based on the fact that, under the terms of Article 1363 of the French Civil Code, “no one can create a title to himself”. According to the customer, the supplier’s case could not succeed based on elements drawn up unilaterally by himself.
The Court of Appeal and then the Cour de cassation rejected these arguments which are only required for purposes of evidencing legal acts.
In this particular case, the main goal was to provide evidence of an existing debt connected to the delivery of supplies which are only to be regarded as “legal facts”. The Cour de cassation confirms, in its latest decision, that proof of legal facts, such as delivery, can be brought up by any convincing means, even if these documents are issued by the party taking advantage of them.
However, the specific context of the case also explains this decision:
- the point here was not to prove the existence of a contract between the parties (legal act) which was undisputed apparently;
- former practices between the parties came in support of the evidence disclosed by the supplier, including:
- the existing customer account opened by the supplier, certified to be compliant with the supplier's books and thus attesting to a regular commercial relationship;
- the usual withdrawal of goods by the customer, without any reported reservations of reservations;
- previous payments of invoices issued under similar conditions, while the related delivery notes were not systematically signed by the recipient customer.
- Practical tips
In the absence of a formal executed contract and in order to prove a legal fact, it is I the claimant’s best interest to keep all documents and elements evidencing the existence of the legal fact in question: invoices, delivery notes, e-mails and written exchanges of any kind.
Even though such documents do not always bear a formal signature, they can still be regarded as valid and convincing elements to prove a legal fact (such as a delivery) and an effective debt, provided that they are related to a regular and unquestionable exchanges and subject to, as always, to the judges’ sovereign appraisal.
Sarah Temple-Boyer Zoé Moura de Castro
Attorney Legal Intern