FASHION LAW


By Stephen Sidkin 24 June 2016. The UK has voted. We will leave the EU. F


or UK footwear retailers and footwear brands, the effect of this decision needs to be considered at two levels.


Let’s start by looking at the position so far as retailers


are concerned. Commercially it is possible that this decision will result in a drop


in the foreign currency value of sterling. If so, those footwear


businesses which will receive in late Summer/Autumn invoices for AW16 stock delivered payable in US dollars or Euros will have a larger sterling amount to pay.


In contrast, if invoices are payable in


sterling, it is possible that overseas suppliers will try and squeeze UK retailers to pay a post-contract premium to take account of the currency lost to the suppliers.


insurance.


A similar point arises if an overseas supplier has taken out credit It is possible that an insurer will try and increase the


premium charged resulting in a corresponding pressure being applied to the UK retailer.


Whilst it is possible that a UK decision to Brexit will result in an


overseas supplier refusing to supply AW16, such an action would suggest that the supplier decided not to have all orders for AW16 made up and is using the referendum decision as an excuse to allocate available stock to non-UK customers.


What then of the legal position? Can overseas suppliers seek to


take advantage of contracts made with UK retailers? The answer here is “possibly”.


The starting point is what is the governing law of the contract. If unspecified – as is often the case – the governing law will be


determined by EU and international law. If English law is the governing law then the vote on 23 June is


unlikely to make any difference so far as AW16 contracts are concerned. This is because:


1. It is unlikely that a Brexit vote will have been specified as an event of termination.


2.Whilst it could be claimed that such a decision had frustrated the purpose of the contract so making it impossible to perform the contract, the English courts have consistently been unimpressed by an argument that a contract is frustrated because it is more expensive to fulfil.


3. For a supplier to claim that the vote amounted to the occurrence of an event of force majeure, it would be necessary either for it to be expressly stated to be so or for it somehow to come within a more usual force majeure event such as the act or decision of a government body. Unlikely, although not impossible.


32 • FOOTWEAR TODAY • JUNE/JULY 2016 Irrespective of this, a Brexit vote will necessitate changes in our


laws but these can only come about if and when the laws are made by Parliament or changed by decisions of the courts. Both will take many months, if not years, to come into effect.


In broad terms, the position for UK footwear brands and their


contracts with overseas buyers is broadly the reverse. But, 23/6/16 overlooks a more fundamental point.


It is critical


for footwear businesses to appreciate what is in the contracts which they make for their goods which are the lifeblood of their businesses.


Stephen Sidkin is a partner in Fox Williams LLP and chairs its Fashion Law Group (www.fashionlaw.co.uk; www.agentlaw.co.uk).


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44