Once the Agency agreement has terminated by the Principal, the Agent usually decides to claim for some indemnities or compensations. These include damages indemnities and goodwill (clientele) compensation.

In order to claim them it is very important to consider the limitation period in which both can be demanded. We have observed that agents usually take too long to decide whether or not claiming for such compensations, they start negotiations with their principals to find a solution to their conflict, sometimes they are re-negotiating their position for a new agreement, area or conditions; or sometimes they simply consider that there is no rush to proceed.

In similar terms as in the EC Directive on Agency Agreements (art. 17.5), the Spanish Agency Act (art. 31) expressly foresees a limitation period of one year from the termination of the agreement in order to claim both the damages indemnity and the goodwill compensation.

This means that after the expiration of such term, no claim will be admitted by our Courts. And in contracts ruled by Spanish law and submitted to arbitral procedures, the agent also risks finding his claim dismissed after that period. This duration cannot be modified by the parties in their agreement, but they can take some actions to extend it.

This limitation has, therefore, important consequences. Of course, there could be an infinite number of situations and we do not intend to cover all of them, but in case the Agency agreement terminates, the following ideas can be useful:

• The one-year period starts from the day the agreement was terminated. This date should also be considered carefully if there was not a formal termination letter.

• One year, according to the Spanish Civil code, implies that the period terminates the exact day one calendar year after (from date to date, for example, May 1 to May 1 next year) or the following day if that day does not exist (for instance, February 29^th to March 1 next year).

• In general terms, the starting of this one-year period is the termination day and not the date in which the letter was sent or received or when the Principal urges the Agent to fulfil his obligations. The previous notice period (if any) shall be respected if included in the termination notice.

• In case the letter contains an immediate termination, that day will be the starting date, even if the procedure reveals that the Principal should have given a termination notice.

• Generally, this applies to each agency agreement. This means that in case of successive and not connected agreements (for instance, the first one ends and the second one starts 10 months later), the termination period will be considered for each separate agreement. Nevertheless, linked agency agreements (agreements with a specific duration that work one immediately after the previous one) are usually considered as one agreement.

• Some activities of the Agent can interrupt this one-year period, re-starting a new one. For instance (some have been accepted by the case-law, others are expressly mentioned in different pieces of legislation):

1. An extra-judicial claim sent by the Agent or by someone in his behalf claiming for the goodwill indemnity, even if the compensation is incorrectly qualified as employment dismissal instead of commercial agency compensation.
2. Claiming the goodwill compensation as a labour indemnity before the labour courts when it was not clear the sort of relationship between the parties.
3. Starting a conciliation procedure before a First Instance Court
4. Starting a mediation procedure (when done by both parties or by one of them enforcing the mediation clause in the contract) will also interrupt the term during the mediation procedure from the moment in which the request for mediation has been received by the mediator or deposited at the mediation institution.
5. The acceptance by the Principal of the debt or the goodwill compensation when asking the clients list.

• Other actions by the Agent could have different results depending on the circumstances and some have not been accepted as valid to interrupt this limitation period:

1. A claim started by the Agent before a non-competent court, will depend on the circumstances.
2. A criminal prosecution does not interrupt the one-year period
3. The starting of the preliminary procedure (diligencias preliminaries) has neither been accepted to interrupt the one-year period.

Therefore, as a conclusion, in the drafting phase of the agreement it seems to be a good idea to consider a mediation clause. This will grant the parties an additional and useful tool to solve their conflicts and a possible way to obtain extra time in case the courts will be called to intervene.

And when an agency agreement terminates (with or without mediation clause), our recommendation for the Agent is immediately submitting the case to a legal local advisor. When the Agent has, for example, received a promise for a new agreement and he is still discussing on it, or he is still negotiating the termination, it is advisable to be careful and to take the necessary actions at least to interrupt the lapse of the one-year period and not to lose the possibility of a future claim. A simple letter carefully drafted could be very useful for the Agent’s interests.

A final remark for Distribution Agreements. Although for some aspects, particularly the goodwill compensation, Spanish Supreme Court has admitted the analogy with Agency agreements, this is not the case for the limitation period of one year to claim it. The distributor claiming for the goodwill indemnity will not be limited to one year after the contract terminated. In cases like these, it is convenient, however, to have precise advice on the type of contract we are facing, since the border between the agency and the distribution is not always clear.

Even Abogados has defended a foreign manufacturer distributing its products in Spain with a local agent/distributor. The agent/distributor (based in Spain) sued our foreign client (the Manufacturer) claiming for the goodwill indemnity foreseen in Article 28 of the Spanish Agency Act. First Instance Court has accepted our arguments basically due to the lack of evidences produced by the plaintiff. Our intention is not to discuss about the burden of proof as general legal principle but to expose some clues in order to better prepare a similar procedure.

The facts

Mr “A” (the Agent) and the Manufacturer had a non-written agreement since long time ago. In 2000 the agent/distributor (a company owned by Mr “A”) and the Manufacturer signed a written contract transforming and substituting the old relationship.

After a period of more than five years, the Manufacturer gave a previous notice to terminate this contract. The agent/distributor then claimed the goodwill (clientele) indemnity as a consequence of this termination.

The debate

One of the discussion elements (quite frequent) was to determine if we faced an agency or a distribution agreement. The problem in this case was probably more a theoretical tan a real one due to the fact that although goodwill indemnity is expressly foreseen at the Agency Act, it is also admitted by analogy in distribution agreements. The question was, therefore, to justify its applicability. Let’s assume (as in the Court judgement) that it was an agency agreement.

Article 28 of the Agency Act (in similar terms to Article 17 of the EC Directive 86/653 of December, 18^th) states that an agent is entitled to an indemnity for customers he brought to the principal (the Manufacturer in our case) or with whom significantly increased the volume of business and provided the principal continues to derive substantial benefits and the payment of this indemnity is equitable due to special circumstances. The amount of the indemnity may not exceed the agent’s average annual remuneration over the preceding five years.

The conclusions

Goodwill indemnity benefits the agent but it is also his responsibility to prove to the Court the necessary elements in order to obtain it. In our case, First Instance Court has rejected this indemnity due to the complete absence of evidences of the main elements. The judge has stated clearly the following:

1. No invoices related to dues-but-not-paid commissions have been showed during the procedure.
2. The plaintiff (the Agent) has not proved to which services these invoices were due, the invoiced company, the commissions’ rate applied, the date from which they were due, if the activity had been correctly ended, if the sales were related to machinery or to spare parts…
3. A document called “accounting statement” (estado de cuentas) has been prepared by the plaintiff himself but has expressly been contested by the defendant (the Manufacturer): this does not show his current situation.
4. The judge did not accept the goodwill (clientele) indemnity because no invoices attesting the collection of commissions have been presented, or have been produced in foreign languages without translation into Spanish.
5. The only references to these invoices made by the accounting expert in his report to the Court are not enough considering that he does not include them in the report.
6. The “clients” included in such clientele were not proved neither it was the existing commercial relationship.
7. There is a complete lack of evidence concerning the increasing of profits that will still benefit the Manufacturer in the future or receive from possible new clients.
8. Concerning the indemnity for the budgets prepared by the agent at the end of the relationship but not still accepted by the Manufacturer these were not proved, including the alleged orders sent by the Manufacturer.
9. The previous relationship with the agent (Mr. “A”) has nothing to do with the current situation, nothing is said about the clients presented by him, his contractual relationship was substituted by the agreement with the new company, and in case of goodwill indemnity, if applicable, this was to be calculated on the basis of the five previous years without considering the previous relationship.
10. The only documents produced by the plaintiff were the signed agreement and a report prepared by an expert but which does not seem to be very trustable considering that the expert modified his conclusions during the trial.

Relationships in which people intervene will lead, sooner or later, to major or minor conflicts. In business relationships, companies try to minimize in their contracts (when they sign them) what can happen in case of discrepancies. But, even if these are essential, it would be naive to think that a contract will give us the solution to any conflict. No matter how many eventualities have been foreseen, the management of the conflict will always go further. How to act, then? How to be prepared when the discrepancies begin? I will present some guidelines from our experience managing and helping to avoid and to resolve conflicts. And although I’m going to focus on those that occur between companies (or among the people of those companies), what I will say could be extrapolated to almost any type of difference.

1. Identify that you are facing a potential conflict

A conflict arises when there are expectations that are not met: the agent seems not to respond as expected, the entrepreneur does not provide what was promised, the product stops covering expectations, the service is no longer adequate. Or we simply want to change the supplier, replace the distributor… the list is endless.

In any of these situations the conflict is just around the corner and, although it is necessary to realize it as soon as possible, it is not always perceived with clarity. Any discrepancy is possible source of conflict and the first thing necessary is to verify where we are and its severity. The steps we will take immediately after will depend on this verification and the time it occurs.

2. Do not react impulsively

In a situation of potential conflict, the most usual is to react: grab the contract and try to see where I am right, what can I argue to reaffirm my position, how to impute responsibility to the other party. But when we react impulsively we renounce our capacity for conviction and persuasion. For many reasons that we think we have, a relationship or a contract have multiple interpretations and nuances that can vary the conclusions and the results.

When a manufacturer of bakery products decided to change their distribution system (potential conflict), he sent all his wholesalers a letter “resolving the commercial relationship” that they maintained (reaction). With a letter of just over two lines, he dug his own judicial grave since the judges considered that what was resolved was a distribution contract and not the annual price conditions that applied, and recognized the wholesalers a goodwill (clientele) compensation.

When a footwear manufacturer, in a change of commercial strategy (potential conflict), unilaterally resolved a long-term agency contract by imputing a supposed inactivity of the agent in his country (reaction), he did not take into account that in other comparable countries the situation was identical and that the decrease in sales was due more to the generalized crisis than to the poor performance of the agent. The alleged resolution for fair cause was not admitted and he had to pay compensation.

When another manufacturer of components for boats was not satisfied with the performance of his agent (potential conflict), he simply decided to sell his products through another representative (reaction) without taking into account the exclusivity granted to the first one and without having warned him properly.

All these reactions are understandable, but none was sufficiently thought out and in all cases we have had headaches as lawyers when defending them before judges and courts. An advice and previous strategies would have avoided many difficulties, would have saved much time and money to the parties and would have had a result without a doubt much more satisfactory.

3. Seek advice immediately

Although nobody better than you knows your business, nobody better than someone external can help you to manage with an adequate perspective the conflicts that are arising.

We have all certainly negotiated and we all feel legitimized to do so, but we are not always able to identify confluent interests or to manage the emotions (our own and those of others) that any conflict entails. External aid is essential, and the sooner you get there, the better.

If the footwear manufacturer imputes to the agent his loss of confidence in the product and a poor performance in the territory and on that basis he decides to terminate the contract, the temptation of the “injured agent” is to respond to the principal with sales figures, arguments, explanations about the clients, to impute the principal’s internal disorganization… Those answers and that information, even though they may be true, could turn to the agent if, for example, he admits something that he later regrets, he gives information that the entrepreneur did not have or he recognizes his weaknesses. And that happens almost always! In addition, it is very frequent that in this phase the parties involved are the ones in the conflict acting on their own, without any objective help, and committing, most of the time, more errors than are desirable.

However, from our experience, we have observed that an external consultant to the relationship and with sufficient competence in the matter discussed, in the potential litigation and its possibilities, and with the skills to negotiate objectively, can suggest a strategy, help to understand the interests that exist, how to approach them better and which method of solution is best suited

4. Design an action strategy

Indeed, facing any potential conflict, in any situation of discrepancy, as insignificant it may seem initially, the vision in the medium or long term from the first moment in which it originates is crucial. It does not do any good to react if it is not within the framework of a properly strategy designed in advance.

I like to remember those letters that were sent demanding a debt of 1,000 and to which the alleged debtor replied that they were not 1,000 but 900 offering a recognition of the debt that, otherwise, would have been more difficult to prove.

A response to a letter in which we are accused of a breach may be the best or the worst ideas depending on what the next steps are. What are the true interests beyond the concrete position at that time? Should I continue to maintain the commercial relationship? If it is not adequate, is it possible to reform it? Is it still viable? Am I interested in resolving the conflict as soon as possible to continue dedicating myself to my productive / commercial activity? What perspective of time, money, energy, reputation … entails embarking on a judicial / arbitral process? What alternative ways are there? These are some of the questions that every person has to ask themselves in order to strategically solve the conflict.

5. Do not threaten, act with a head.

Normally when the conflict has begun or when it is in its early stages, it is usual to threaten to go to court (warnings of the type “we will have no choice but”, “we will be forced to” are the formulas that hide such reaction). This is usually a bad idea. First, because threatening —depending on how it is done— could even be a crime. But, in addition and above all, because it usually closes more doors than it opens.

The solution to the conflict may come, indeed, from a judge (or arbitrator) who imposes it, but it is not the only way and probably, if we follow this path, it will not leave anyone happy. The negotiation assisted from the beginning by a professional that helps to alleviate the emotional burden and to know alternatives, or the mediation (the intervention of a neutral professional that helps to understand interests and bring positions of the parties so that they themselves, with the mediator’s help, can find a solution) are almost always better solutions. The threat will put the other party on a defensive position and in a sort of way it constrains us to comply with what is threatened so as not to show weakness. However, the action framed in a strategy according to our interests (negotiated or mediated), will place us in the best way of solution.

6. And do not let the conflict grow: talk and listen.

And if “threatening” with legal actions adds blockage to an already difficult situation, talking (and “talking” is usually always better than “writing”) clears the way even more. And together with “talking” nothing better than “listening” and to do it actively. It is shown that in most conversations, discussions or even negotiations, we act more aware of what we want to say, how to counterargument or convince, instead of really understand what the other party proposes or of trying to look for common spaces.

Conflicts are not always definitive (ending the commercial relationship), and very often they are merely circumstantial or partial (unpaid bills, undelivered products, erroneous executions, lack of accountability). In these states, it is much easier to establish new bases or conditions, to find out where the discrepancies are and to solve still minor conflicts, or preventing them from becoming more complex. The help of a loyal advisor who understands the interests to safeguard and collaborates in the determination of the steps to take, is, again, essential. I would dare to say that, on principle, you have to distrust who advises you to go directly to the litigation or confrontation.

The Provincial Court of Pontevedra (judgement of May 22 2017; rec 213/2016) analysed several contracts between Dismaca, SA (agent) and Repsol Butano, SA (principal). Although the agent alleged that it was a mixed contract and not an agency one, the Tribunal concluded that there was an agency contract independent of others that might exist between the parties.

The discussion was due to the expiration of the one-year limitation period to claim compensation for clients established by the Agency Law. The Agent waived this period and asked the application of the general one set in Article 1964 of the Civil Code due to the alleged mixed and atypical nature of the contract.

The Court rejected this claim because of its contradiction with the approach of the claim that spoke of agency contract, and by the exercise of the action of goodwill (clientele) compensation based on the regime of the Agency Law.

The independence of the contracts is, in the Court’s view, contradictory with a hypothetical single mixed contract. Nor does it accept the qualification as an atypical contract, given the express reference to a special Law that regulates the agency contract. The Court insists that it was the agent who claimed based on an agency contract, only with subsequent rectifications to avoid the application of the expiration term.

The book contains a detailed questionnaire for 17 different jurisdictions and permits to have a first approach to the subject not only in those countries but also to compare the regulations in each of them.

It intends to solve the main questions on Agency and Distribution agreements. The questions try to discuss about the following: the possibility of establishing a local company to import products (laws governing the formation of entities, how foreign parties are treated); distribution structures with reference to the termination of the agreement, compensations, transfer of rights, confidentiality; non-competition covenants (with reference to resealing prices, for instance), restrictions on territories or customers; other general issues arising in this sort of agreements such as advertising provisions, intellectual property clauses, consumer protections issues, warranties, employment connected conflicts; and also governing and choice of forum and dispute resolution remedies.

You can have a free pdf copy of the Spanish chapter by clicking Distribution and Agency 2016.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Distribution & Agency 2016, (published in March 2016; contributing editor: Andre R Jaglom, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP). For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.

Conflicts when terminating agency and distribution contracts arise mainly in claiming compensation for clientele. Agency Act provides that when the contract expires, the agent is entitled to compensation, which, by analogy (with caveats and nuances), can be extended to distributors. For this compensation it is necessary that the agent has brought new customers or significantly increased operations with the pre-existing, that his previous activity can continue producing substantial benefits to the principal and that is equitable. Such compensation may not exceed one year’s remunerations (annual average received during the last five years or the duration of the contract if lower).

Because of these inaccuracies (new clients, significant increase, can bring substantial benefits, equitable) claims are usually supported by expert reports. There is, however, a tendency to claim directly the maximum standard (one year of remuneration) without going into further analysis. But doing so there is the risk that a judge rejects the request as unfounded. We herein give some hints to help to get the maximum amount of compensation. According to our experience, it is convenient that the agent and the expert take into account the following:

1. Check what has been the contribution of the agent: if there were customers before the contract and what volume of sales existed (it is a previous condition to have increased the number of customers or transactions with them).
2. Analyse the importance of such clients in order to ensure future benefits for the Principal: their recurrence, fidelity (to the Principal and not to the agent), the migration rate (how many remain with the Principal at the end of the contract). It will be difficult to recognise a “clientele” with sporadic, occasional, non-recurring clients or that still remain in the area of ​​agent.
3. How the agent remains after the termination: does the contract prevent the agent to compete with the Principal? Is this competition difficult because of the kind of market, the products or the type of agent? If the agent continues to serve the same clients but for a different Principal, clientele compensation could be put into question.
4. Is this compensation fair? Examine how the agent has acted in the past: the degree of fulfilment of his obligations, his work in introducing products or new markets, the possible development of such products or services in the future, etc.
5. What commissions does the agent lose in the future? See the exclusivity that he had; the difficulty to sign a new agency contract (because of his age, crisis, etc.) or a new source of revenue, the sales trend in recent years (those considered for compensation), etc.
6. Calculate the maximum that can be received as compensation: the yearly average perceived during the contract period (or 5 years if it lasted more) including all fix amounts such as commissions, bonuses, awards, etc. or gross margins in case of distributors.
7. And finally, if there is an expert report, do include in it all the documents used to reach the conclusions, otherwise a judge could refuse it all.

Note: In order to prepare this post, I have also considered the Commission Report of 23 July 1996 COM (96) 364 and the Judgement of the European Court of Justice of 26 March 2009, Case C-348/07

Negotiating and drafting international Agency or Distribution agreements not always an easy question because it regards what is governed during the agreement but also the important consequences (in term of legal requirements and economic consequences) of the termination.

This paper is a mere summary of what has been presented and discussed in Munich in September 10 2016 by Ignacio Alonso at the occasion of the Workshop-Seminar «Drafting Effective International Contracts: International Sales, Agency and Distributorship Contracts» of the UIA joint session of the Contract Law and International Sale of Goods Commissions. The information has been obtained, among other sources, from the International Distribution Institute Reports (www.idiproject.com).

It contains some clues on what to take into account when drafting Agency and Distribution contracts regarding the goodwill indemnity and damages compensation after the termination of the agreements.

Quite often the purchase/resell commercial relationships between a manufacturer and its retailors is carried out without signing a contract, but with subsequent orders: the manufacturer receives it, then he sends the products, the retailor pays and then he resells to the final customer.

In Spain, as it is known, there is not a “distribution contracts Act”, but courts have accepted a certain analogy with the agency agreement. In a certain way, courts say that agency and distribution are not the same sort of agreements, though some consequences of the agency can apply by analogy to the distribution. This is, for example, goodwill compensation (clientele) in case of contract termination.

Therefore, it is quite usual that when a company continuously buys products from a manufacturer to resell them, its intention is to consider this a “distribution contract”. And why? Mainly because of the goodwill compensation (clientele): this compensation does not apply to the supply contracts, but it is possible in a distribution agreement precisely because of that analogy. And if the manufacturer-retailor relationship has lasted several years, the amount of this compensation can be of some importance (until the annual average of gross margins over the past five years).

But beware, because not all the continuous supply contracts can be considered to be a “distribution contract”. You should ask for advice in each particular case. In Spain, a distribution contract requires something more than a series of purchase and resale of products. The following list will help you to verify whether a particular commercial relationship is closer to a continuous supply agreement or to a distribution one with the possibility, in this case, of claiming the mentioned goodwill compensation:

1. In a supply agreement products are purchased for resale. Its purpose is the resale with a margin without any further conditions.

2. These agreements are usually a succession of orders, with delivery conditions (billing and payment) normally agreed.

3. The distribution agreement, however, involves a “more intense” in the business relationship that does not exist in the mere succession of sales transactions.

4. The distribution agreement involves the mutual cooperation between manufacturer and distributor for distributing a product and is intended to be stable over the time.

5. The distribution agreement gives greater trade integration of the reseller in the distribution network of the manufacturer, and the manufacturer influences more the commercial management of the distributor than with a mere reseller.

6. In the distribution contracts there are usually additional conditions relating to the purchase and resale agreements not limited to the pricing and payment conditions. These may be, amongst others, covenants on minimum periodic purchases, volume discounts, resale areas, exclusivity, prohibition for the sale of competing products, support obligations to end customers, repurchase of non-resold goods.

7. The distribution contracts can also provide other agreements relating to the operation of the business relationship: investments by the distributor, how to place orders, goods transportation, storage and maintenance of stocks, covenants not to compete, compensation for non-compliance, payments and guarantees to ensure compliance, etc .;

8. Finally, distribution contracts usually include agreements for the use of the manufacturer’s trademark (license) with the obligation for the on manufacturer to advertise or to provide special labelling or packaging, etc. and a certain uniformity for distributors (obligations related to the affixing of the trademark, harmonized image, etc.).

In conclusion: if you want to end a relationship of this kind whose nature is unclear, you should analyse the above list to, at least, have an initial idea of ​​what can be claimed or not. In any case, unfortunately this is not an automatic list and it is wise to ask for specific and expert advice before taking any decision.

Note. In preparing this post I have followed some judgments of Spanish courts which may be useful to consult if you want additional information: AP Salamanca 330/2001 of 29 June; TS (Civil Chamber, Section 1) 70/2004 of 5 February; TS 332/2009 of May 18; AP Madrid (Section 11th) 736/2010 of 30 September; AP 553/2010 of 5 October Barcelona; AP Zamora (Section 1) 100/2015 of June 8.

The book contains a detailed questionnaire for 17 different jurisdictions and permits to have a first approach to the subject not only in those countries but also to compare the regulations in each of them.

It intends to solve the main questions on Agency and Distribution agreements. The questions try to discuss about the following: the possibility of establishing a local company to import products (laws governing the formation of entities, how foreign parties are treated); distribution structures with reference to the termination of the agreement, compensations, transfer of rights, confidentiality; non-competition covenants (with reference to resealing prices, for instance), restrictions on territories or customers; other general issues arising in this sort of agreements such as advertising provisions, intellectual property clauses, consumer protections issues, warranties, employment connected conflicts; and also governing and choice of forum and dispute resolution remedies.

You can have a free pdf copy of the Spanish chapter by clicking here.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Distribution & Agency 2015, (published in March 2015; contributing editor: Andre R Jaglom, Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP). For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.