An employee becomes aware of the termination of his employment contract. He decides to refer the matter to the labor court because he considers that his individual agreement is not valid. It states that the company's agreement does not mention the number of days included in the package.

The employer is convicted and appealed. According to him, the agreement provided for a system of monitoring and follow-up by the superior. Thus, the absence of an indication of the number of days had to be compensated by these devices.

The Court of Appeal also condemns the employer and declares the contract of lump sum void. According to the judge, this agreement did not meet the conditions laid down in Article L3121-64 of the Labor Code because the number of days of fixed-rate work was not included in the agreement. No device can compensate for the absence of a numerical indication, the agreement must include the number of days worked otherwise it is not valid. The employer appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation confirms the decision of the Court of Appeal. She recalls that a flat rate agreement in days must set the number of days worked and thatan indication defect cannot be compensated for by any other device.

The mere mention of the legal maximum limit of 218 days is therefore insufficient to validate the flat-rate agreement in days applied in this case.