Adoption from the SPA: The prohibition on reselling the animal is not an unfair term

The clause included in the contracts that the Society for the Protection of Animals (SPA) requires animal adopters to sign—prohibiting them from selling the animal without the SPA’s written consent—is not unfair. This was the ruling of the Court of Cassation in a decision* dated June 1, 2016, which overturned and annulled the judgment rendered on June 19, 2014, by the Vannes Local Court.   In 2010, the SPA entered into five “contracts for the donation of an animal subject to conditions” with Mr. and Mrs. X. The donation of these five dogs was specifically subject to the condition that the animals not be transferred without the written consent of the adoption shelter, under penalty of legal action. In each case, it was also specified that “failure to comply with this contract will result in the revocation of the donation and will authorize the SPA to reclaim the animal .” Disregarding this prohibition on transfer, the couple sold the dogs without the SPA’s consent; the SPA therefore filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the donations granted due to breach of contractual obligations. For its part, the couple argued that the clause making the transfer of the animal contingent upon the shelter’s written consent was unfair—a line of defense upheld by the Vannes District Court, which dismissed the SPA’s claim. Overturning the judgment rendered in Vannes, the Court of Cassation held, on the contrary, that such a clause is not unfair: “ The provisions of Article L.132-1 of the Consumer Code, which classify as unfair clauses inserted into contracts between professionals and non-professionals (...), do not apply to an act of donation, even if it is made subject to a condition.” Furthermore, “a clause can be deemed unfair only if it creates a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties; however, in this case, the donations made by the SPA to Mr. X had transferred to him, without equivalent consideration, ownership of five dogs.” According to the court, in entering into these contracts, the SPA did not act as a professional within the meaning of Article L.132-1 of the Consumer Code. Indeed, when it donates an animal, the organization acts for purposes that do not fall within the scope of a commercial, industrial, craft, professional, or agricultural activity. Furthermore, any donation may be subject to a condition, such as not selling the donated property. * Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, hearing of June 1, 2016, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000032635731&fastReqId=165761973&fastPos=1