The court considered the method of calculation of compensation payable to a commercial agent on termination of the agency. The directive provided that the agent should be compensated, not indemnified, and the way an English court calculated compensation need not follow other European jurisdictions. A tariff system would be unfair, and the court must make … Continue reading Barret Mckenzie and Co Ltd v Escada (UK) Ltd: QBD 1 Feb 2001
M had a series of agency contracts selling women’s clothing. The last contract was in 1994, and on termination, M claimed an indemnity under the contract which itself applied the regulations. Reg 17(3) gave an indemnity for new customers, where the principal continued to derive benefit. Held: The agency contract was to be interpreted to … Continue reading Moore v Piretta Pta Ltd: QBD 11 May 1998
Where self employed agents had been taken on to market the respondent’s services, and those agencies were terminated, such activities were those of commercial agents within the Directive, and they were entitled to compensation. Whether he was a secondary agent or not was a question foreign to English law, and not to be gleaned other … Continue reading Tamarind International Ltd and others v Eastern Natural Gas (Retail) Ltd and Another: QBD 27 Jun 2000
The plaintiff had been appointed as an exclusive sales agent for the defendant for a minimum period of four years. The defendants terminated it eighteen months early claiming fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The clause setting the damages . .
The claimant was an agent in the petrochemical industry promoting and selling the defendant’s valves. There were two agency agreements, one relating solely to products to be supplied to a particular petro-chemical complex in Nanhai, the other being . .
A party who chose to contract as principal for the purpose of reselling the goods of the vendor on a speculative basis and for a profit, was not to be deemed to be a commercial agent of the first vendor, and so was not entitled to compensation on . .
Arden LJ considered the principles to be applied when considering whether a party to civil litigation should be allowed to appeal a trial judge’s decision on the basis that a claim, which could have been brought before him but was not, would have . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts