Sagal v Atelier Bunz 
- The claimant procured sales of jewellery for the defendant
- Although the claimant was never in control of stock, he traded in his own name
- Was the claimant protected by the Commercial buy discount xanax online Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993?
- Conclusion on one’s own behalf cannot constitute concluding on another’s behalf
- Sagal did not negotiate or conclude on Atelier’s behalf; he simply communicated orders
Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 17th January 2015