Note on Cass. com., 13 May 2026, no. 24-21.473, F-B

  • • •

The labourer of the eleventh hour received a denarius. The same wages as the one of the first hour. The parable illustrates the supposed generosity of the master, who pays the same to the one who has worked since morning and the one who has given but a single hour of labour.

Is this justice?

Hardly so, in the eyes of the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de cassation, which, under the presidency of Vincent Vigneau, has just delivered a fine decision concerning the right to payment of services that have not been rendered.

In the case at hand, a dispute arose between Compagnie de gestion hôtelière (CGH) and W.R & S. The two were bound by a fixed-term contract entered into on 1 November 2020, for a duration of twenty-four months (until 31 October 2022).

W.R & S was to provide, on behalf of CGH, communication services at specific periods of the year, in consideration of fixed monthly fees of EUR 8,160. The services were intermittent; the remuneration, by contrast, was spread evenly over twelve equal monthly instalments.

On 3 October 2021, CGH terminated the contract, for a reason not disclosed by the decision.

W.R & S then brought proceedings against CGH seeking payment of two sums:

  • the first, retrospective, corresponding to the services rendered between February and October 2021 (that is, the unpaid monthly instalments accrued prior to termination);
  • the second, more prospective, corresponding to the ordinary instalments yet to fall due between the date of termination (alleged to have been wrongful) and the contractual term (31 October 2022).

The service provider thus sought payment both for services purportedly rendered before termination, and for those that ought to have been rendered after termination.

Before the Court of Appeal, our service provider prevailed on every count. The Paris Court (CA Paris, pôle 5, ch. 4, 18 Sept. 2024, no. 23/05911) granted relief on both fronts.

As regards the services rendered before termination, the Court of Appeal held that « it is apparent from the contractual stipulations that the agreed remuneration was not linked to the rendering of services, but rather corresponded to a monthly fixed-fee instalment of services that were planned on an annual basis ». In other words, the fixed fee being independent of the substance of the services — since billing occurred each month while services were rendered only at certain periods of the year — the monthly instalments were due.

As regards the services owed after termination, the Paris judges held, citing Article 1212 of the Civil Code, that « a contract entered into for a fixed term must be performed by the parties until its term, save for force majeure or imprévision ». Since the debtor failed to establish either force majeure or imprévision, it remained bound to pay the monthly instalments until the agreed term.

This bracket deserves more than a passing remark. Could the service provider invoke imprévision? Doubts arise, given the nature of its obligation. The Cour de cassation has long held that « the debtor of a contractual monetary obligation that has gone unperformed cannot be released from that obligation by invoking a case of force majeure » (Cass. com., 16 Sept. 2014, no. 13-20.306, Bull. IV, no. 118). We have, for our part, expressed serious reservations as to the questionable choice of the criterion of excessive onerousness within Article 1195 of the Civil Code (see L. Thibierge, Le contrat face à l’imprévu, foreword by L. Aynès, Economica, coll. « Recherches juridiques », 2011, passim; « La résistance de la force obligatoire du contrat à la révision pour imprévision », RDC 2024, no. 4, p. 116; « Force majeure — Rendre ou ne pas rendre, telle est la question », Lexbase Contrats Responsabilité Immobilier, April 2025; and more recently « Caducité, rentabilité, imprévision : et un, et deux, et trois zéro », Lexbase Contrats Responsabilité Immobilier, 20 May 2026), a criterion that does not appear capable of reaching monetary obligations. In that respect, the UNIDROIT Principles appear infinitely superior.

In any event, that is not the focal point for the Cour de cassation, which quashes the judgment of the merits on two grounds.

First, as regards the services owed before termination.

Citing Articles 1103 (binding force) and 1229 (termination) of the Civil Code, the Court reproaches the judges of the merits for having failed to ascertain, as they had been invited to do, « whether W.R & S had performed the services it was bound to provide before 3 October 2021, the date of termination at which one had to stand in order to assess the performance by the contracting parties of their respective obligations ». A cassation for lack of legal basis follows, the Court of Appeal having insufficiently reasoned its decision.

In other words, if every labour deserves its wages, every wage deserves its labour. If the promised services have not been performed (which may well be the very cause of the termination), the right to remuneration vanishes. The contractual smoothing of remuneration over time matters not in that respect. If nothing has been performed, nothing is owed.

Second, as regards the services owed after termination. To put an end to a fixed-term contract amounts, save for exceptions (among which termination for non-performance), to a wrongful act. The victim of an unfounded rupture is left no better off than before, deprived of the gains it had anticipated from the contract.

On this point, the decision is silent, and one will be careful not to make it say what it does not. The victim of the rupture was not seeking compensation for its loss (which presumably consisted in the lost contribution margin between the day of termination and the contractual term), but rather the price of the services owed.

In other words, this would amount to a form of specific performance: the debtor would be ordered to do that to which it had committed, namely to pay the agreed price.

Yet such an outcome is inconceivable where the counter-performance is not delivered. The parties’ intention was never that the price be paid without the services being rendered. One cannot be compelled to that which was not agreed.

The synallagma cannot be broken, and the victim of the rupture cannot be enriched by receiving the price without performing.

Hardly surprising, then, is the attendu (if we may still use so quaint a formula), which reads: « in the event of the early termination of a fixed-term contract, the price is owed only if the agreed services have been performed ». The formula echoes that already enshrined in the rulings handed down by the same Commercial Chamber on 26 January 2022 (nos. 20-15.474 and 20-17.441) and 7 September 2022 (no. 21-13.003), and recently confirmed by the same Commercial Chamber (Cass. com., 3 December 2025, no. 24-17.537, F-B, Valgo v. Recyclage de l’Épine).

The decision of 13 May 2026 is underpinned by an immanent logic: in a synallagmatic contract, the price is, by its very essence, the counter-performance of an actual performance. Whether such performance precedes or follows termination, the price can only be paid in exchange for services, past and/or future. The stipulation of a fixed fee changes nothing. It is but a method of calculation, not a challenge to the synallagma.

Finally, the interpreter will bear in mind the need to proceed with modesty and caution: the decision deals only with the payment of the price, and leaves untouched the question of compensation for loss. A word to the wise…

  • • •

The labourer is worthy of his hire; provided that he has laboured.

Takeaways

  • Where a fixed-term contract is terminated early, the price is owed only if the agreed services have been performed (Articles 1103 and 1229 of the Civil Code).
  • For the period before termination, a monthly fixed instalment is owed only where the services that were to be rendered during the corresponding period have actually been rendered. The fixed fee is a method of calculation, not a mode of existence of the price.
  • For the period after termination, the creditor cannot obtain payment of the future monthly instalments. The contract having come to an end for the future, there is no longer any obligation to be performed.
  • The question of compensation for loss remains in the blind spot.