The Commercial Agents Regulations ("The Regulations") Flashcards

1
Q

What are the “Commercial Agents Regulations”?

A

It is a European Directive which aims to harmonise the law relating to agency in the EU.
The Commercial Agents Regulations came into force on 1st January 1994 and apply to all agency agreements in existence on that date. They apply where the activities of the agent have taken place in Great Britain, regardless of the nationality of the agent or of the principal (reg 1(2)). They seek to harmonise conditions for commercial agents acting throughout the European Union, and they provide commercial agents with significant protections.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Who do the Commerical Agents Regulations apply to?

A

¥ THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO COMMERCIAL AGENTS ONLY - NOT TO EVERY AGENT. DO NOT APPLY THESE REGULATIONS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS NOT A COMMERCIAL AGENT. ALSO THESE REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT THE PRINCIPAL/AGENT RELATIONSHIP - IT DOES NOT CONCERN FORMING CONTRACTS WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD
¥ * IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THESE REGULATIONS ONLY REALLY APPLY WHERE THE AGENTS CONTRACT IS TERMINATED*
¥ FINALLY, THESE REGULATIONS ALSO APPLY TO AGENCY CONTRACTS WHICH WERE FORMED PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REGULATIONS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What sort of agents do the Regulations apply to?

A

A commercial agent is: “A self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person (the principal) or to negotiate and conclude the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of and in the name of the principal.” Sagal t/a Bunz UK v Atelier Bunz GmbH [2009] EWCA Civ 700; [2009] 4 All ER 1253; [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 104; [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the key requirements of a commercial agent?

A

So the key requirements:
⁃ 1) self employed
⁃ 2) continuing authority
⁃ 3) to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods / to negotiate and conclude the sale or purchase of goods
⁃ 4) on behalf of and in the name of the principal[ So an undisclosed principal relationship will not fall into these regulations.]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Have the courts found it easy to apply the regulations?

A

The courts have found it difficult to apply this piece of legislation (primarily because continental countries have tended to have a much more protective attitude towards agents than us, but this legislation seeks to harmonise our rules):

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Parks v Esso [1999]

A

The word “negotiate” has been subject to some litigation: Meaning of Negotiate:
⁃ In order to interpret the legislation, the English court used the Oxford English dictionary rather than considering the interpretation of the term by other European courts. The essential question was whether someone who is running an Esso petrol station who is supplying petrol to the customers (but has very limited if any discretion) is able to ‘negotiate’ so as to be considered to be an agent in this context. The court held that they were not to be considered to be an agent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

P J Pipe and Valve v Audco [2005]

A

In this case there was less strict interpretation of the word ‘negotiate’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What happens if the actions of the commercial agent are secondary?

A

The Regulations do not apply where the activities of the commercial agent are ‘secondary’. The provisions are notoriously complex and it will not be possible in the lecture to provide a full picture of the difficulties [and we will not be asked to apply these particular provisions in the exam].

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

reg 2 and Schedule, para 2

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gailey v Environmental Waste Controls and ors, [2004] Eu LR 42

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

McAdam v Boxpak Ltd 2005 SLT (Sh Ct) 47; 2006 SLT 217 (IH), [2006] Eu LR 901

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Marjandi Ltd v Bon Accord Glass Limited, per Sheriff Tierney, Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 15 October 2007 (unreported).

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Consider the situation where an agent delegates (legitimately) to a subagent. Does this subagent at the bottom of the chain have a right to be protected by the principal at the top of the chain?

A

NO

It is a requirement that the commercial agent have a direct contractual relationship with the principal for the regulations to apply:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Light & ors v Ty Europe Ltd, [2003]

A

This question was answered in the positive by the English Court of Appeal in this case.

Thus, there must be a direct contractual link between the principal and agent in question before these regulations apply. [LM: not entirely convinced that this is correct. It is English Court of Appeal level so would be highly persuasive in the Scottish courts].

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Barnett Fashion Agency Ltd v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd [2011] EWHC 978 (QB); [2013] EWHC 91

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happens if you try to ‘contract-out’ of the Regulations through a choice of law clause?

A

E.g. If the principal operates in California who has agents working within the EU, can they choose Californian law? It seems reasonable, however, this would mean that the agent in the EU would lose the benefit of the Regulations. This is what was attempted in the following case: Ingmar v Eaton Leonard [2001]

17
Q

Ingmar v Eaton Leonard [2001]

A

The choice of law clause elected Californian law, but this meant that the agent in Europe would not benefit from the Regulations. However, the ECJ held that this choice of law clause does not remove the protections that the European agent has.

18
Q

Indemnity and compensation (reg 17)

A

The main focus of these Regulations is to compensate the agent on termination of the agency relationship. This is why UK businesses were so upset about this legislation since agency contracts in the UK could normally be ended very easily.

The Directive allowed EU Member States to choose one of two types of compensation to be available to agents: either indemnity or compensation[ NB neither term has its conventional meaning - they are essentially autonomous meanings.]. Most countries chose one or the other, but the UK decide to use both forms - it is up to the parties to determine which one is available. If the contract is silent, compensation automatically applies. In other words, indemnity must be specifically opted into in the agency contract to apply (reg 17(2)).

19
Q

Indemnity provision (regulation 17(3)

A

The indemnity provision seeks to ensure that the commercial agent obtains the benefit of his or her work which would otherwise accrue to the principal on termination of the agency contract. Payment is subject to a maximum of one year’s commission (reg 17(4)).
⁃ E.g. An agent is negotiating contracts for aeroplane engines. This is a huge piece of machinery and negotiations may take long periods of time. Imagine if the principal terminates the agency contract immediately before the conclusion of the contract with the third party. If the agent is being paid by commission then they may not receive any payment at all. Further, imagine if the third party then goes on to buy six engines, all the future commission which the agent should have will not be received by the agent. Indemnity tries to get the agent the benefit of the work that they have done.

20
Q

Moore v Piretta PTA Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 174

A

??

21
Q

Turgay Semen v Deutsche Tamoil GmbH C-348/07 [ECJ] 26.03.09; 2009 2 All ER (Comm) 243; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 653

A

??

22
Q

Volvo Car Germany GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH (C-203/09) [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 906

A

??

23
Q

Compensation (reg 17(6)-(7))

A

This has proved to be an incredibly complex and contentious area of the law in Scotland and England.

24
Q

When is the commercial agent entitled to compensation?

A

The commercial agent is entitled to compensation[ NB compensation often is used to describe breach of contract damages but in this situation it is not breach of contract damages - these apply even if the principal is not in breach.] for the damage which he suffers[ This is in the present tense (contrast with breach of contract damages which look into the future.)] as a result of the termination of his relations with the principal. Reg 17(7) provides 2 non-exclusive examples of when such damage is deemed to occur.

25
Q

How is compensation calculated?

A

Calculation of compensation has proved extremely controversial. The principles are not yet settled.

26
Q

King v Tunnock Ltd 2000:

A

Until recently the leading Scottish case (essential reading) was King v Tunnock Ltd 2000:
⁃ [Facts: Mr King was an agent working for Tunnocks. He was working for them for ~26 years when Tunnocks decide to close part of their bakery and terminate his contract, paying him nothing. His agency contract was silent on compensation or indemnity, this is not surprising since it predates the Regulations. This means he was due to receive compensation[ Since it is compensation which an agent is due if the contract is silent.]. The case went to the Inner House. The Court considered how to interpret this provision. The court recognised that the provision on compensation was inspired by French law so chose to consider French law. They noted that the French court used a judicial custom that the agent is entitled to 2 years gross commission (amounting to ~£27k.) The Inner House were careful to say that they were trying to value the ‘goodwill’ (i.e. what was Mr King’s agency worth on the date of termination).
⁃ So this case suggests that a benchmark of two year’s gross commission may be used as a guide for the courts to calculation of compensation. This benchmark is not found within the Regulations, but is adopted from French law, on which the compensation provisions in the original directive were loosely based.

The King decision was criticised in almost all subsequent English cases - they English courts were very concerned that 2 years gross commission was far too much money. See:
27
Q

Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Inc [2001] CLC 1825; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 329

A

??

28
Q

Tigana Ltd v Decoro Ltd [2003] EWHC 23 (QB); [2003] ECC 23.

A

??

29
Q

P J Pipe and Valve Co v Audco India Ltd [2005] EWHC 1904 (QB); [2006] Eu LR 368

A

??

30
Q

Vick v Vogel-Gapes [2006] EWHC 1579 (QB)

A

??

31
Q

Lonsdale v Howard & Hallam [2006] (essential reading!!***

A

Matters have potentially been clarified following a HL ruling in an English appeal[ This means it is only highly persuasive in relation to Scots law.] in 2007 in which the HL criticised the approach of the Inner House in King:

⁃ Read or look up this case in a case book!!!

32
Q

Scottish Power Energy Retail Ltd v Taskforce Contracts Ltd [2008] CSOH 110; 2009 S.C.L.R. 137

A

Scottish cases post-dating Lonsdale:

[There haven’t been very many Scottish cases since then so this issue is fairly untested. However, it does seem that the chances of getting compensation are slim if the business is in trouble.]

33
Q

English cases post-dating Lonsdale:

A

Clarmoda Ltd v Zoomphase Limited [2009] EWHC 2857 (Comm)
Nigel Fryer Joinery Services Ltd v Ian Firth Hardware Ltd [2008] EWHC 767 (Ch); [2008] Lloyd’s Rep 108
McQuillan v McCormick [2010] EWHC 1112 (QB); [2011] ECC 18

34
Q

Clarmoda Ltd v Zoomphase Limited [2009] EWHC 2857 (Comm)

A

??

35
Q

Nigel Fryer Joinery Services Ltd v Ian Firth Hardware Ltd [2008] EWHC 767 (Ch); [2008] Lloyd’s Rep 108

A

??

36
Q

McQuillan v McCormick [2010] EWHC 1112 (QB); [2011] ECC 18

A

??