This was to ensure a relevant distribution of value added and responsibilities

Yes, I repeat, it is easier for a camel to go through the hole of a needle as a subcontractor to negotiate with its payer.

Most of the great industrial achievements of recent years explained by intensive recourse to subcontracting. It remains a milestone in the process of management of quality and traceability. Finally is a key factor in the development of the territory both to develop the regional industrial fabric but also to attract investment!

Or because of the increasingly dictatorial role played by the directors of purchases, that no reason by price, changes of behaviour of consumers and the unpredictability of current economic conditions (increase of contents, brutal of supply failure, etc.), subcontractors often "stuck" between order donors and powerful (between the hammer and the anvil!) suppliers suffer particularly from this situation.

The contributors of capital and in particular pension funds impose on industry profitability increasingly high standards that impact margins suppliers.

New markets open up and France subcontracting sectors exporting more but this does not preclude their market share in worldwide reduce their German competitors, Italian voire! Donors of order indeed develop their purchases in countries where the factors of production, work but also capital, are lower than in Europe. In most cases, they relocate in these countries their own activities without proposing measures to their own subcontractors.

The law on subcontracting, which celebrates this year its 35 anniversary, protects the subcontractor. Its purpose was to defend the subcontractor a failure in its immediate client, called "main contractor", and give a direct right to the final client, called a "master of work". But the main beneficiaries does use it as too rarely while also subcontracting law is constantly evolving.

Therefore, this is to ensure the implementation of a new legislative framework favourable to subcontracting and for a real rebalancing relations between donors of order and subcontractors.

Indeed, the 1975 Act does not abuse of economic power or the misuse of intellectual property rights, it applies only to non-payment of the subcontractor.

Also, these include reaffirming the weight of the General conditions of sale of the providers in the commercial negotiation, put wrong on the law of modernization of economy (LME) on August 4, 2008, where debates is concerned that the large-scale distribution.

It also suggests the overall environment of outsourcing all of the players in the sector and not only expectations of major donors of their management of procurement and order (unlike the France, the "technical" is at the heart of the negotiation in Germany).

This was to ensure a relevant distribution of value added and responsibilities. It is not acceptable that the subcontractors are transfer increasing responsibilities without any expertise in return recognized, valued and protected. Relations must be able to register in a long term goal and not a perpetual balance of power.

The Act of December 31, 1975, having been developed real estate outsourcing and non-industrial subcontracting should be given once and for all a legal characterization of industrial subcontracting in the Act.

Industrial subcontracting are subject to no control of legality of their stipulations (otherwise with the law of 1 February 1995 on the protection of consumers on abusive clauses: or nothing of the kind in the field of industrial subcontracting) and no legal control device a priori or a posteriori is intended to protect against the possibility of a significant imbalanceover the lowest of them, in the sharing of rights and obligations resulting from their agreements (which leaves any leisure donors impose their general conditions of purchase with their range of unfair terms repeatedly denounced to the Board of review of commercial practices (CRC)... in vain!).

Also, subcontracting firms seek legal status regulated industrial subcontracting: subcontracting contract to be at least materialized by a writing.