For property buyers and owners from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, one of the least intuitive features of French property law is the clause r\u00e9solutoire<\/em> (resolutory clause). This is a contractual stipulation under which a contract terminates automatically \u2014 without any court order \u2014 if one of the parties fails to perform an obligation that the clause expressly designates. French law gives it a central place in leases, where it is the landlord’s primary legal weapon against unpaid rent, and it is also a standard feature of sale agreements, instalment sales and loan arrangements. Two recent developments make 2026 a decisive year for anyone dealing in French property. On 3 June 2026, the Cour de cassation<\/em> (the French Supreme Court for private law) upheld the validity of broad, “catch-all” resolutory clauses. And on 6 July 2026, Decree no. 2026-596 of 6 July 2026<\/a> was published in the Journal officiel<\/em>, making the resolutory clause a standard, mandatory component of the model residential lease forms used across France, for every lease signed or renewed from 1 October 2026<\/strong>. This article explains how the clause works, what the new rules change, what recent case law says, and the concrete steps foreign landlords and buyers should take \u2014 with the exact deadlines that govern each situation. For assistance with any French property transaction, the real estate law team at Kohen Avocats<\/a> advises English-speaking buyers, owners and investors in Paris and throughout France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In French residential leasing law, the resolutory clause is not an option: it is imposed by statute. Article 24 of the Law of 6 July 1989<\/a> (the statute governing residential leases, known as the loi du 6 juillet 1989<\/em>) provides that every residential lease must contain a clause providing for the automatic termination (r\u00e9siliation de plein droit<\/em>) of the contract for non-payment of rent or service charges when due, or for non-payment of the security deposit. The statute then states: «Cette clause ne produit effet que six semaines apr\u00e8s un commandement de payer demeur\u00e9 infructueux.» \u2014 in other words, the clause only becomes effective six weeks after a commandement de payer<\/em> (a formal payment notice served by a court enforcement officer) has remained unsuccessful. The six-week period, which replaced the former two-month period under the anti-squat legislation of 27 July 2023, is the single most important number for a foreign landlord to remember: no eviction, and no valid termination, is possible until a properly drafted payment notice has been served and left unanswered for six full weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commandement de payer<\/em> is not a simple letter. It must be served by a commissaire de justice<\/em> (the French bailiff), and Article 24 of the 1989 Law requires it to contain, on pain of nullity, several mandatory mentions: the statement that the tenant has six weeks to pay the debt; the monthly amount of the rent and charges; a breakdown of the debt; a warning that failure to pay or to request payment deadlines exposes the tenant to judicial termination of the lease and eviction; the possibility of applying to the departmental housing solidarity fund; and the possibility of asking the court for a grace period under Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code<\/a>. A payment notice that omits any of these mentions is null, and the six-week clock never starts. For a foreign owner \u2014 often managing the property from abroad through a local agent \u2014 instructing a commissaire de justice<\/em> to serve a compliant notice on the very first unpaid month is the standard first step of any recovery strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What exactly does the new decree change? Article 1 of Decree no. 2026-596 of 6 July 2026<\/a> rewrites section VIII of the two model residential lease forms annexed to Decree no. 2015-587 of 29 May 2015 (the standard contracts used for the vast majority of private lettings). The new section VIII states that the lease is terminated automatically for non-payment of rent or charges or non-payment of the deposit, and that: «La clause de r\u00e9siliation de plein droit ne produit effet que six semaines apr\u00e8s la date d’un commandement de payer demeur\u00e9 infructueux.» It also standardises the optional boxes allowing the parties to add further automatic-termination grounds: failure to take out the compulsory tenants’ liability insurance (assurance des risques locatifs<\/em>), effective one month after a notice; neighbourhood disturbances established by a court decision having the force of res judicata; and, for homes subject to a servitude de r\u00e9sidence principale<\/em> under planning law, failure to occupy the property as one’s principal residence. Under Article 3 of the decree<\/a>, these changes enter into force on 1 October 2026<\/strong> and apply to leases concluded or renewed from that date. The practical consequence is significant: from that date, every landlord \u2014 including every foreign landlord letting a French apartment or house \u2014 is expected to use a contract that reproduces the statutory clause and its six-week mechanics, and any non-standard wording that deviates from the mandatory rule will be ineffective to the extent it shortens or bypasses the statutory deadlines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The strictness of the tenant’s payment obligation was reaffirmed by the Cour de cassation<\/em> in Cass. 3e civ., 14 March 2024, no. 21-25.798<\/a>. In that case, a residential tenant resisted the enforcement of the resolutory clause by arguing that the landlord had breached the legal conditions attached to the zero-interest loan (pr\u00eat \u00e0 taux z\u00e9ro<\/em>) he had used to buy the flat. The Court rejected the defence, holding that the only sanction provided for such a breach is the repayment of the loan, and that: «la locataire ne pouvait s’en pr\u00e9valoir pour justifier le d\u00e9faut de paiement du loyer stipul\u00e9 par le contrat de location.» \u2014 the tenant could not rely on it to justify non-payment of the rent. The lesson for landlords is reassuring: under Article 1728 of the Civil Code<\/a>, which lists the tenant’s two main obligations \u2014 to use the premises reasonably and to «payer le prix du bail aux termes convenus» (pay the rent at the agreed times) \u2014 the obligation to pay rent is not neutralised by the tenant’s perception of unrelated irregularities. But that reassurance is qualified by the case law discussed in Part I.B: the tenant may still defeat the clause where the landlord itself has failed in its core obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, foreign landlords must understand that the resolutory clause does not authorise self-help. Once the six weeks have expired without payment, the landlord does not evict the tenant: it sues before the tribunal judiciaire<\/em> to obtain a judgment constatant<\/em> the acquisition of the clause. Article 24 of the 1989 Law adds procedural filters designed to protect tenants: when the unpaid debt reaches two months, the bailiff signals the matter to the local eviction-prevention commission (commission de coordination des actions de pr\u00e9vention des expulsions locatives<\/em>); the court summons must be notified to the pr\u00e9fet<\/em> (the State’s departmental representative) at least six weeks before the hearing; and the judge may, if the tenant resumes payment of the current rent and can realistically clear the arrears, grant payment deadlines of up to three years, suspending the effects of the clause. Even after judgment, eviction is executed by a bailiff, and it is suspended during the winter moratorium (the tr\u00eave hivernale<\/em>). A foreign landlord who attempts to change the locks or cut off utilities is not enforcing a resolutory clause; it is committing an offence. The clause is best understood as a fast-track to a court ruling, not a substitute for one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For premises let for business use \u2014 the bail commercial<\/em> (commercial lease), typically for shops, restaurants, offices and hotels \u2014 the resolutory clause is governed by Article L. 145-41 of the Commercial Code<\/a>, which provides that: «Toute clause ins\u00e9r\u00e9e dans le bail pr\u00e9voyant la r\u00e9siliation de plein droit ne produit effet qu’un mois apr\u00e8s un commandement demeur\u00e9 infructueux.» \u2014 any clause providing for automatic termination only takes effect one month after a commandement that has remained unsuccessful. The commercial lease therefore runs on a faster clock than the residential lease: one month, not six weeks. The payment notice must mention that one-month period on pain of nullity. The same article allows the court, when granting the tenant payment deadlines, to suspend the effects of the clause, provided the termination has not yet been recorded by a final judgment; and it states that the clause does not operate if the tenant pays within the deadlines fixed by the judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Article L. 145-41 was modified with effect from 28 May 2026<\/strong> by Law no. 2026-403 of 26 May 2026 on the simplification of economic life<\/a> (its Article 63), which tightened the conditions for suspending the clause’s effects: the granting of payment deadlines and the suspension of the clause for non-payment of rent are now conditioned on the tenant’s capacity to clear the rental debt and on the full payment of the current rent before the first hearing. This is a genuine tightening of the law in favour of landlords: a commercial tenant that resumes paying rent only partially, or that has no realistic plan to clear the arrears, will no longer obtain the automatic suspension that practice had made familiar. For a foreign owner of commercial premises in France, this is one of the most favourable legislative developments in recent years \u2014 but it does not remove the one-month deadline or the requirement of a formally compliant commandement<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The courts, however, have set an important limit to the landlord’s rights, and it was restated in a published ruling of Cass. 3e civ., 5 March 2026, no. 24-15.820<\/a>. A commercial tenant withheld its rent because the leased premises were unfit for their intended use, owing to defects for which the landlord was responsible, and the landlord sued to have the resolutory clause declared acquired. The Cour de cassation<\/em> quashed the lower court’s decision, ruling that: «le juge doit en v\u00e9rifier le bien-fond\u00e9, peu important que le locataire n’ait pas demand\u00e9 en justice des d\u00e9lais de paiement dans le mois de la d\u00e9livrance du commandement.» \u2014 when the tenant invokes the defence of non-performance (exception d’inex\u00e9cution<\/em>) against the enforcement of the clause, the judge must examine the merits of that defence, regardless of whether the tenant applied to the court for payment deadlines within the month following the notice. In plainer terms: if the landlord has breached its own fundamental obligations \u2014 under Articles 1719 and 1720 of the Civil Code<\/a>, the duty to deliver the premises in a condition fit for their purpose \u2014 and the premises are genuinely unfit, the resolutory clause is paralysed, and the landlord cannot terminate the lease for non-payment. The Court had already held, in its earlier published decision of 18 September 2025 (no. 23-24.005), that a commercial tenant may suspend payment without prior formal notice from the day the premises become unfit for their agreed use. The March 2026 ruling goes further and forces the judge to weigh that defence even where the tenant failed to seek grace periods within the month. Foreign landlords of commercial property should therefore never treat a commandement de payer<\/em> as a formality: before serving it, they must be certain that their own obligations \u2014 repairs, compliance works, peaceful enjoyment \u2014 are beyond reproach, because a single unfit-premises argument can neutralise the clause entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Resolutory clauses are not confined to leases. In sale contracts, Article 1654 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides a statutory fallback: «Si l’acheteur ne paye pas le prix, le vendeur peut demander la r\u00e9solution de la vente.» \u2014 if the buyer does not pay the price, the seller may seek the resolution of the sale. In practice, notarial deeds of sale (actes de vente<\/em> signed before a notaire<\/em>) frequently include an express clause r\u00e9solutoire<\/em> covering the payment of the price, and instalment structures \u2014 sales of new-build property with deferred payment, sales on life annuity (vente en rente viag\u00e8re<\/em>), or sales where part of the price is paid in monthly instalments over several years \u2014 systematically contain one. The clause operates as a private-law cancellation mechanism: if an instalment remains unpaid one month (or any period the contract fixes) after a formal notice, the sale is retrospectively undone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The retroactive effect of resolution was clarified by the Cour de cassation<\/em> in Cass. 3e civ., 14 September 2023, no. 22-13.209<\/a>. The case concerned a house sold partly for cash and partly by way of a life annuity; the buyer stopped paying the annuity, the sellers activated the resolutory clause, and the courts had to liquidate the parties’ accounts. The Court recalled that: «la condition r\u00e9solutoire entra\u00eene l’an\u00e9antissement r\u00e9troactif du contrat ainsi que des restitutions r\u00e9ciproques qui en constituent des cons\u00e9quences l\u00e9gales.» \u2014 the resolutory condition entails the retroactive annulment of the contract, together with the mutual restitution that is its legal consequence. It quashed the decision because the lower court had failed to order the seller to return the capital portion of the price that had been paid in cash, even though the clause provided that paid arrears and improvements remained with the seller by way of damages. The practical point for both sides of an instalment sale: resolution does not mean the seller keeps everything. The buyer recovers the instalments paid, the seller returns the property, and only what the contract expressly assigns to the seller as compensation \u2014 or what the judge accepts as such \u2014 is retained. Foreign buyers who have paid large instalments before a default should be aware that a resolutory clause does not amount to a forfeiture clause: the sums paid are generally recoverable, subject to damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A second ruling, Cass. 3e civ., 8 June 2023, no. 22-13.774<\/a>, illustrates a further limitation: the clause can only be activated for the specific obligations it designates. Sellers of an apartment building sold for a price payable in part in 420 monthly instalments had obtained a court judgment against the buyer for unpaid instalments, and then served a commandement<\/em> visant la clause r\u00e9solutoire claiming the amount of that judgment debt. The Court rejected their claim, holding that the sum, having become enforceable by judgment, could only be recovered through ordinary enforcement procedures, and that the resolutory clause could not be used to collect it: «cette somme, devenue ex\u00e9cutoire, ne pouvait \u00eatre recouvr\u00e9e que par les voies ordinaires d’ex\u00e9cution forc\u00e9e.» The drafting lesson is direct: a resolutory clause in a sale deed sanctions the non-payment of a contractual instalment, not every debt between the parties. If the buyer’s default is not exactly the breach described in the clause \u2014 unpaid contractual instalment, unpaid balance on the completion date \u2014 the seller must first obtain a judgment and then enforce it by the ordinary means, or renegotiate and serve a fresh notice grounded on the contractual obligation itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For foreign buyers, these rules matter even before any dispute. At the signing of the acte de vente<\/em>, the notaire<\/em> collects the full price; a buyer who arranges financing through a bank must ensure that funds are available on completion day, because the deed will typically provide for automatic resolution if the balance is not paid. Buyers paying in instalments under a compromis de vente<\/em> or a deferred-payment structure should have the scope of the resolutory clause reviewed clause by clause \u2014 in particular whether late payment of a single instalment terminates the whole contract and with what consequences \u2014 and should remember that, as the September 2023 ruling shows, the courts will not allow a seller to keep both the property and the price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond the special regimes of leases and sales, the resolutory clause is a general instrument of French contract law, now codified in the Civil Code as reformed in 2016. Article 1224<\/a> provides that resolution of a contract results either from the application of a resolutory clause, or \u2014 in the case of a sufficiently serious breach \u2014 from a notice given by the creditor to the debtor, or from a court decision. Article 1225<\/a> then sets the drafting standard: «La clause r\u00e9solutoire pr\u00e9cise les engagements dont l’inex\u00e9cution entra\u00eenera la r\u00e9solution du contrat.» \u2014 the resolutory clause must specify the undertakings whose non-performance will bring about the resolution of the contract. The same article adds that resolution is subject to a prior formal notice (mise en demeure<\/em>) that remains unsuccessful, unless the parties agreed that resolution would result from the mere fact of non-performance, and that the notice only takes effect if it expressly mentions the clause. Two drafting rules follow for any foreign owner or buyer drafting or reviewing a French contract: the clause must identify the obligations it sanctions, and the notice must expressly refer to the clause, on pain of the resolution being ineffective.<\/p>\n\n\n\nI. The Clause R\u00e9solutoire in French Leases: A Mandatory Instrument, Now Standardised<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. Residential Leases: The Six-Week Rule and the Decree of 6 July 2026<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. Commercial Leases: The One-Month Rule of Article L. 145-41 and Its Limits<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
II. The Clause R\u00e9solutoire Beyond Leases: Sales, Instalment Sales and the General Law of Contracts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. Sale Contracts: Article 1654 and the Effects of Resolution<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. Drafting Valid Clauses: Articles 1224-1225 and the June 2026 Ruling on “Catch-all” Clauses<\/h3>\n\n\n\n