This case concerns a distance contract between a student and a school run by an operating business. The latter sends him a brochure and a registration form by email. Two days later, the client physically goes to the business' premises to transmit all the signed documents. She then makes use of her right of withdrawal and assigns the business who refuses to reimburse her the amount due.

The business considers that this contract was not concluded remotely because the client moved to their premises to file her file. According to the business, the client could not withdraw.

The Court of Appeal ordered the business to reimburse tuition and registration fees. It relies on Article L. 221-1 of the Consumer Code to recall that a distance contract corresponds to a ‘contract concluded between a trader and a consumer, within the framework of an organized system for the sale or provision of services at a distance, without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, by the exclusive use of one or more remote communication techniques until the conclusion of the contract’. The relevant concluded contract was sent by e-mail and concluded without the physical presence of the contracting parties. The fact that the client traveled to the premises to give the documents therefore has no impact on the classification of a distance contract. The business appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation validates this reasoning. It states that the customer has made regular use of the right of withdrawal. Article L. 221-18 of the Consumer Code grants the consumer, for distance contracts, a period of 14 days from acceptance of the offer to exercise the right of withdrawal. In addition, when sending the email a withdrawal form was sent. For the Court, this shows the existence of an ‘organized system of remote service’ set up by the business.

As the buyer exercised its right within the time limit, the Court rejected the business' request.