Electronic signature case law - two firsts in the field of professional leasing and real estate credit

Some of these refusals come either from the judge's incomprehension who, confusing evidence with validity, rejects the signature because it is not qualified, or from the inadequacy of the presentation of the file. But alongside these classic mistakes, here are some more interesting things:

• Two decisions of the Paris Court of Appeal continue a path already observed at the beginning of the year, namely that the mere mention "electronic signature" in the contract is not sufficient to establish the reality of the signature (CA Paris 15 May 2025 RG n°24/02375; CA Paris 19 June 2025 RG n°23/15092). For a more complete development on this subject, we invite you to consult our article published in Expertises, July 2025, p.32.
• A decision concerns the borrower's consent , which, it is sometimes forgotten, is one of the essential qualities of any signature: "It is not justified, on the one hand, of the conditions under which the latter's consent would have been obtained, and on the other hand, that the alleged consent would relate specifically to the contract invoked" (CA Amiens 24 April 2025 RG n° 23/04010). 
• For the first time, it is a real estate loan whose electronic signature is denied by the judge (CA Riom 21 May 2025 RG n°24/00700), sanctioning a clear deficiency in the presentation of the file because the bank had not produced any document justifying the identity of the borrower.
•  Electronically signed professional leasing, which until now seemed to be immune to disputes, has experienced its first legal setbacks in four decisions which all sanction the failure to authenticate the tenant's signatory of the contract:
  • The decision rendered by the Toulouse Court of Appeal on May 27, 2025 (RG No. 23/00301) sanctions the impossibility of clearly identifying the person who signed the contract on the account of the tenant;
  • In the case judged by the Court of Appeal of Rennes on 3 June 2025 (RGn°24/02587), the tenant's signatory is considered to be insufficiently identified, in particular due to the absence of the sending of an OTP/SMS code, authentication via an email address being deemed insufficient;
  • In a remarkably reasoned decision, the Colmar Court of Appeal (RG n°24/02638) sanctioned the confusing nature of the file presented and in particular the absence of elements allowing the tenant's signatory to be authenticated convincingly;
  • Finally, the Court of Appeal of Lyon, in its judgment rendered on June 19, 2025 (RG n°22/07107) sanctioned the inability of the lessor to explain the link between the presumed tenant's signatory of the contract and the authenticators (email address, telephone number) appearing in the evidentiary files.

These rejection decisions are a signal to be taken seriously. Some lessors are not sufficiently attentive to the reliability of the authentication of the person who signs for the tenant, while any confusion on the subject is the first argument that the tenant company uses to contest its commitment afterwards. And contrary to what some had hoped, the fact that rent was actually paid by the tenant does not change the outcome of the decision.