The claimants asserted breach by the defendant of an exclusive distributor agreement. The defendants said that the claimants had failed, as required by the contract, to use all reasonable endeavours to promote the product.
Held: There was no one single failing which amounted to such a breach, but the court could treat several lesser such failings together and find a breach. In this case it failed in having only one person assigned to the obligation, and he was out on the road three days a week. The court set out what might be expected of a distributor: ‘1. to prepare and utilise a detailed written marketing or promotional plan to assist in its sales and promotion of the supplier’s products;
2. to monitor, and take timely steps to improve, the quality of its sales team;
3. to have in place a system in relation to information flows and procedures for forecasting future sales;
4. to engage in positive dialogue with the supplier, in order to maximise the promotion of sales of the supplier’s product; and
5. to make use of all the materials provided to it by the supplier in order to promote and market the sale of the supplier’s products.’
Gloster DBE J
[2009] EWHC 2447 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – PJ Van der Zijden Wildhandel NV v Tucker 1975
The party seeking to be discharged from a contractual performance, and relying on the terms of the agreement, carries the burden of proving the facts necessary for such discharge. . .
Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.376175