The Paris Court of Appeal recently ruled on a legal dispute involving a supplier of medical equipment and a network of laboratories, highlighting ongoing complexities in French commercial law. The case centers on the interpretation of Article L442-1, II of the French Commercial Code, which mandates that companies must consult with their suppliers before terminating a business relationship. The supplier, which provided consumables and protective equipment to around 900 medical biology laboratories, claimed that the network had violated this rule by ending the relationship without consultation. The supplier was ultimately placed in judicial liquidation due to the loss of this business. The supplier had entered into a business relationship with a network of laboratories in October 2020, when the purchasing manager of the network requested a "single price for all the structures" of the network. This offer was validated by the network and led to a cumulative turnover of over 4.3 million euros over three financial years. However, in January 2023, the network ceased orders, and the purchasing department was moved to a civil company within the network. The supplier was left without a contract and eventually went into liquidation. The supplier and its liquidator then filed a lawsuit against three entities within the network: the SELAS that employed the purchasing manager, the SELAS whose stamp was on the validated offer, and the civil company that ended the relationship. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld a previous ruling from the Lyon Commercial Court, dismissing the supplier’s claims on the grounds that the relationship was "only a function of the sanitary situation of the moment." The court emphasized that a group of companies, lacking a legal personality, cannot be bound by a contract or constitute a commercial partner under Article L442-1, II. It also argued that the supplier’s referencing of "all the structures" of the network was not enough to establish a stable, continuous, or significant commercial relationship, especially given the unique circumstances of the health crisis and the absence of a formal agreement on order volumes. The ruling also sparked a debate over the applicability of Article L442-1, II to the purchases of medical biology laboratories. While previous rulings had excluded such purchases from the scope of this law, citing the civil nature of the activity, the Paris Court of Appeal took a functional approach, focusing on the economic activity of the party initiating the breakup rather than its legal status. This approach could potentially expand the scope of the law to more sectors, though it raises questions about its consistency with previous jurisprudence. The court’s decision also drew criticism for not fully considering the possibility that the three companies sued had acted on behalf of the network, despite their individual legal personalities. The ruling failed to investigate whether these entities had the authority to negotiate and terminate the supply relationship on behalf of the network. This oversight could lead to procedural challenges for suppliers dealing with complex network structures, as they may be forced to sue multiple entities for what was effectively a single business relationship. This outcome risks undermining the intent of the public order provision, which aims to prevent the legal structure of a network from being used to avoid contractual obligations.