Financial lease: a canvassed professional may withdraw

A financial lease (location financière) concluded off-premises is not a financial service merely because the lessor is authorised to carry out finance lease transactions. The canvassed professional therefore retains the right of withdrawal extended by the French Consumer Code, subject to two cumulative conditions: the subject matter of the contract is unrelated to their main business, and they employ no more than five employees.

Key points

• The French Consumer Code extends to certain off-premises contracts between professionals protections designed for consumers, including the right of withdrawal.
• That extension requires two cumulative conditions: the subject matter of the contract does not fall within the main business of the professional approached, and that professional employs no more than five employees.
• Contracts relating to financial services remain excluded from that extension.
• A simple leasing transaction for equipment is not a financial service merely because the lessor is authorised to carry out finance lease transactions.
• The lessor's licence as a finance company is not enough to displace consumer law from a lease concluded off-premises.

Copier lease off-premises: what was held

The commercial chamber dismisses the lessor's appeal to the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court): a simple leasing transaction does not become a financial service merely because the lessor is authorised to carry out finance lease transactions. The decision discussed here (Com., 10 June 2026, No. 24-22.673) concerns a copier lease taken out by a self-employed healthcare professional who, according to the findings of the lower court judges, had been canvassed.

The lessee entered into a lease with a financial lessor for a copier supplied by a third-party company. On the same day, they signed a warranty and maintenance contract for the same equipment with that supplier, and took delivery of the equipment a few days later. By letter of 13 July 2017, the lessee notified the supplier and the lessor that they were exercising their right of withdrawal under Articles L. 221-18 et seq. of the French Consumer Code. The lessor disputed the existence of any such right.

The lessee brought proceedings against the lessor to have the withdrawal recognised. The court of appeal (CA Aix en Provence, 21 November 2024, No. 20/12604) held that the withdrawal had been validly exercised. Before the Cour de cassation, the lessor argued that it was a licensed finance company and characterised the lease as a financial service, excluded from the scope of the French Consumer Code. The commercial chamber sets aside that reading of Article L. 311-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code (free translation). The two other grounds of appeal did not warrant a specifically reasoned decision.

While Article L. 311-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code allows financial companies, authorised to carry out finance lease transactions, to carry out transactions ancillary to their business, such as the simple leasing of movable or immovable property, it does not follow that the latter must, on that ground alone, be classified as a financial service.

When may a canvassed professional withdraw?

A canvassed professional may withdraw from an off-premises contract where the subject matter of the contract is unrelated to their main business and they employ no more than five employees. These two conditions are cumulative. The French Consumer Code then extends to that professional the provisions of sections 2, 3 and 6 of the chapter on distance and off-premises contracts, including the right of withdrawal. One exclusion remains.

Contracts relating to financial services are however excluded.

The exclusion of financial services cannot be inferred from the status of the other contracting party. A lessor licensed as a finance company may carry out transactions ancillary to its business, including the simple leasing of movable property. Those transactions remain leases. The canvassed professional therefore retains the protection attached to off-premises contracts, provided they meet the headcount condition and the condition relating to the subject matter of the contract.

The financial consequences fall on the lessor. The court of appeal had ordered the lessor to reimburse the rentals collected and the lessee to make the copier available for collection. Those orders stand. A financial lease concluded off-premises with a very small canvassed business therefore remains exposed to belated annulment, together with restitution of the rentals already received.

What scope for the notion of financial service?

Classification as a financial service depends on the nature of the service provided, not on the provider's licence alone. Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011, transposed by Law No. 2014-344 of 17 March 2014, defines financial services as any service relating in particular to banking, credit, investment or payments. The commercial chamber relies on that definition rather than on the classification in the French Monetary and Financial Code relied on by the lessor.

The court of appeal, for its part, had distinguished banking transactions from financial services by relying on the structure of Book III of the French Monetary and Financial Code. The decision discussed here does not adopt that distinction between titles. The solution reached is narrower: authorisation to carry out finance lease transactions, taken in isolation, is not enough to classify a simple lease as a financial service.

One uncertainty remains. The decision does not say that a leasing transaction could never fall within financial services; it rejects the classification derived from the lessor's status alone. As the case law stands at 10 June 2026, a lessor seeking to escape the extension must therefore show something more than its licence.

Points to watch for lessors and professional lessees

A financial lessor cannot rely on its licence to displace the right of withdrawal of a canvassed professional client. The useful check concerns two objective factors at the time of conclusion: the client's headcount and the relationship between the subject matter of the contract and the client's main business. A copier, a software package or office equipment generally remains unrelated to the main business of a self-employed practitioner or a retail trader.

• Withdrawal period: fourteen days, under the provisions applied by the court of appeal.
• Extension: twelve months from expiry of the initial period where the information on the right of withdrawal was not provided in the manner required by the French Consumer Code.
• Effect retained by the court of appeal: reimbursement of the sums paid and return of the leased equipment.

What to check before signing a financial lease?

An off-premises contract calls for a three-point review. The professional approached checks whether their headcount does not exceed five employees and whether the subject matter of the contract falls outside their main business. The lessor, for its part, checks that the information on the right of withdrawal has actually been provided, failing which the period is extended by twelve months. A refusal to take account of a withdrawal exercised within time exposes the lessor to restitution of the rentals and to the loss of its claims for compensation. The status of licensed finance company offers, on its own, no immunity.