FASHION LAW


Agents and sub-agents what are the issues?


T


he appointment of an agent who then goes on to appoint one or more sub-agents is fairly common. But despite being fairly common, less


certain is the application of the Commercial Agents Regulations both to agents and sub-agents.


What is the uncertainty for agents?


Whether the sub-agents are appointed to cover a particular product range, group of customers, or a territory, the starting point is to determine the appointment of the agent. The definition of a commercial agent is one of a self-employed intermediary having continuing authority to negotiate the sale or purchase of goods.


But lurking in the shadows is one of the exceptions to when an agent is


not a commercial agent for the purpose of the Regulations. This is the issue of “secondary activities” as defined by the Regulations.


It is, therefore, possible to envisage a situation where an agent is


appointed to recruit and manage a number of sub-agents. In effect, the agent creates a salesforce for the principal. But in this situation, there is an argument to say that as the agent’s primary activity is the recruitment and management of a salesforce, the Regulations do not apply.


This situation can be contrasted with the situation where the principal


appoints the agent to obtain orders on behalf of the principal – in essence, giving the agent continuing authority to negotiate the sale of goods as mentioned above.


If the agent chooses to do so by recruiting a number of


sub-agents, it would be a hard judge who decided that the agent was not a commercial agent and, therefore, that the Regulations did not apply.


The only reported English court judgment to date does not make the


situation clearer. In its judgment the Court of Appeal decided that an agent concerned with managing a number of sub-agents could have a claim against the principal under the Regulations and that the claim was by reference to the success of both the agent and sub-agents in obtaining orders for the principal’s products.


What is the uncertainty for sub-agents?


Before the Court of Appeal judgment the High Court had considered the position of the sub-agents in this case. The High Court decided that sub-agents could claim compensation against the principal (not the agent) under the Regulations.


In an attempt to avoid liability, the principal appealed to the Court of


Appeal. The principal claimed that for the Regulations to apply, there would need to be a direct contractual link between principal and sub-agents and that was not the position in this case because the sub-agent’s contractual relationship was with the agent (not the principal).


The Court of Appeal agreed with the principal. However, it was clear from


the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the thought that the sub-agents would be unable to benefit from the Regulations concerned the Court of Appeal. To seek to address this concern, the Court of Appeal expressed the view that the sub-agents should be entitled to a share of what was obtained by the agent by way of compensation (or indemnity) from the principal. However, this was at best a pyrrhic solution for the sub-agents as the agent was unable for financial reasons to mount a claim against the principal.


40 • FOOTWEAR TODAY • JANUARY 2020


Stephen Sidkin is a partner in Fox Williams LLP and chairs its Fashion Law Group


www.foxwilliams.com - www.fashionlaw.co.uk www.agentlaw.co.uk - www.distributorlaw.co.uk


So what is to be done?


From the principal’s perspective, the scope of the appointment of the agent may provide the principal with an escape route from a claim for compensation or indemnity under the Regulations where the appointment of sub-agents is anticipated.


From the agent’s perspective, however, it follows that the reverse


is also the case. Careful wording of the scope of the appointment may result in the agent being able to claim compensation (or indemnity) under the Regulations!


From the perspective of a sub-agent, meanwhile, a sub-agent may be able


to claim a share of the compensation (or indemnity) recovered by the agent. Alternatively, it might be argued that there was an implied trust between agent and sub-agent and that the agent holds the compensation (or indemnity) (or at least part of it) on trust for the sub-agent.


And finally – and alternatively - given that the law treats an agent as an


extension of the principal, it is possible to envisage a court accepting that either the sub-agency agreement between agent and sub-agent provides the contractual link to the principal or that there could be a collateral contract between principal and sub-agent.


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  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55