A court of appeal, having found that the tenant had complied, within the prescribed time limit, with an initial notice, cannot declare the termination of a commercial lease where the repetition of the breach concerned had not been the subject of a fresh notice invoking the forfeiture clause.

Application pratique:

This case law protects Sophie because she cured the first breach, and the landlord cannot rely on that old notice for a new breach. She should contest any eviction by arguing that no fresh notice was served. Sophie should also pay all outstanding rent immediately and keep proof to avoid further disputes. It is wise to consult a French property lawyer to formally resist the termination.

Application pratique:

Under this decision, Marc cannot forfeit the lease based on the earlier notice because the new breach is a separate act. He must serve a new formal notice specifically detailing the repeated subletting and giving a time limit to comply. Marc should instruct a lawyer to draft and serve that notice correctly, ensuring it refers to the forfeiture clause. Without a fresh notice, any court action will likely be dismissed.

Application pratique:

The case confirms that a landlord must reissue a formal notice for each distinct breach, even if it is similar to a previous one. Karim can argue that the termination is invalid because the landlord relied on an obsolete notice. He should promptly stop the offending use and respond to the termination demand by citing this authority. Karim should also gather evidence of his compliance after the first notice to strengthen his position.