In the business world, securing business relationships is a top priority. Anticipating the risks of non-performance of a contract is essential to protect the health of your business.
The penalty clause then proves to be a contractual tool that is as powerful as it is essential. For a long time, the Court of Cassation has defined it as the clause by which the parties” assess on a lump-sum basis and in advance the compensation to which the non-performance of the obligation undertaken will result ” (Cass. Civ. 1re, October 10, 1995, no. 93-16.869).
The legal framework for this clause is established by article 1231-5 of the Civil Code, which defines its principle and limits. Although its validity is in principle (Cass. Com., February 22, 1977, No. 75-15.054), its implementation and interpretation raise crucial practical questions.
The strategic usefulness of the penalty clause
The penalty clause fulfils a double fundamental function in the life of a contract. On the one hand, it has a comminatory nature: by setting a financial penalty that is often greater than the amount of foreseeable damage, it strongly encourages the debtor to fulfill his obligations on time. It is an effective way of exerting pressure to ensure the successful conclusion of the agreement.
On the other hand, and this is its main function, the penalty clause serves as a bulwark against the vagaries of judicial evaluation. By setting a fixed amount of compensation upon signature, it prevents the difficulties and the length of time associated with the proof and calculation of damage before a judge. The strength of this mechanism lies in the fact that the penalty is due simply because of the non-performance observed, regardless of whether the final damage is lower, greater or even non-existent (on this last point, Cass. Civ. 3E, January 12, 1994, no. 91-19.540).
The victim of the breach does not have to prove the existence or extent of their damage to obtain payment of the agreed sum. The sole proof of failure is sufficient, as the Court of Cassation regularly recalls (Cass Civ. 3)E, December 20, 2006, no. 05-20.065; Cass Civ. 3E, October 4, 2011, no. 10-16.856).
The lump-sum and exclusive nature of the penalty clause
The principle of the penalty clause is to set a fixed price. Therefore, in principle, it excludes any claim for additional compensation for the damage it is intended to cover. A creditor who benefits from the application of the clause cannot also claim late payment interest or other damages for the same breach (Cass. Com., December 2, 2020, no. 18-17.330). The sum provided replaces the judicial assessment of the damage.
However, there is a limit to this exclusivity. If the creditor shows that he has suffered a distinct injury, not covered by the scope of application of the penalty clause, there is nothing to prevent him from seeking additional compensation on this basis. It is therefore crucial to draft the clause in such a way as to precisely delimit its scope.
Finally, it is essential to remember that activating the penalty clause is an option, not an obligation for the victim of the breach. In other words, even if a penalty is provided for in the contract, the creditor retains the choice of weapons: he can always, if he prefers, waive the penalty to demand the forced execution of the contract or ask for its resolution in court (Cass Civ. 3rd, February 14, 2019, no. 17-31.665).
The concrete implementation of the penalty clause
The activation of the penalty clause is subject to specific conditions. Except in the event of non-performance that has become final, the penalty is only due after a prior notice from the debtor.
This requirement, recalled by article 1231-5 of the Civil Code, is a substantial formality that judges scrupulously verify (Cass Civ. 3E, February 2, 2022, No. 20-21.705). This formal notice must sufficiently alert the debtor to the alleged breach and may take the form of a bailiff's act, a court summons or even a registered letter.
Once the formal notice has been issued and the breach is proven, the creditor has an option. He is never forced to invoke the penal clause and may abandon it in order to favour other common law sanctions. He can thus continue with the forced execution of the main obligation, potentially under penalty, or request the resolution of the contract (Cass. Civ. 3E, February 22, 1978, no. 76-13.828). If he chooses to activate the clause, it applies solely because of the non-performance, and payment may even be requested in summary proceedings if the breach is not seriously questionable.
The judge's assessment and power of review
While the parties are free to set the amount of the penalty, this amount is not beyond the control of the judge. Thus, since Law No. 75-597 of 9 July 1975, the judge has, as an imperative, the power to moderate or increase the penalty if it is “clearly excessive or derisory”.
The judge assesses the “clearly excessive” nature by comparing the amount of the clause to the damage actually suffered by the creditor. If the disproportion is obvious, he can reduce the penalty, but will never be able to award a sum less than the amount of the actual damage (Cass. Com., January 13, 2021, no. 19-14.767).
To assess the excessive nature of the clause, judges must look at the date of their decision, and not when the penalty became due (Cass. Civ. 1E, March 10, 1998, no. 96-13.458).
This assessment is based on the damage, and not on the financial situation of the debtor (Cass. Com., October 2, 1979, no. 77-15.793).
Conversely, if the agreed amount is “clearly derisory” compared to the damage, the creditor can ask the judge to increase it. This situation is rarer, but protects the creditor against a clause that would void the commitment of its substance.
Points of vigilance: pitfalls to avoid
To be fully effective, the penalty clause must be properly qualified. Confusing it with other similar contractual mechanisms is a frequent error that can have significant legal and financial consequences. Here are the key differences to be aware of.
Withdrawal clause: the freedom to withdraw, not the penalty for a fault
It is crucial not to confuse the penalty clause with the withdrawal clause. While the penalty clause sanctions a contractual breach, the withdrawal clause offers a simple faculty of repentance to a party, allowing it to withdraw from the contract in return for the payment of an agreed sum. The difference is significant: unlike the penalty, the amount of the withdrawal compensation is fixed and completely beyond the judge's power to moderate.
Limitation of liability clause: a limit, not a package
The distinction with the limitation of liability clause is more subtle but just as fundamental. The penalty clause sets a fixed amount due as soon as non-performance is established, regardless of the actual damage. The limitation of liability clause, on the other hand, establishes a compensation ceiling: the creditor must always prove his damage, and will only be compensated up to it, without ever being able to exceed the fixed ceiling. Thus, a clause providing for compensation “within the limit of the harm suffered” is a clause limiting liability, which escapes the judge's power to review because it is derisory (Cass. Com., December 18, 2007, no. 04-16.069).
The absolute limit: gross or fraudulent misconduct
Finally, let us recall a cardinal principle of contract law: no clause can cover gross negligence (that which indicates an extremely serious negligence bordering on fraud) or fraudulent misconduct (the intention to harm) of the debtor. Faced with such a fault, the penalty clause, like the limitation of liability clause, will be rejected by the judge to allow full compensation for the damage.
Do you need assistance with a dispute related to a penalty clause?
I assist managers, shareholders and entrepreneurs in the management of their commercial conflicts, especially when there is a penalty clause.
