Tigana v Decoro [2003]

Facts

  • Tigana was a sales agent for Decoro, a Chinese leather sofa manufacturer
  • Tigana was responsible or establishing Decoro in the UK
  • Issue with fire safety regs caused losses for Decoro, who lawfully terminated the agency agreement

Issue

  • Under regulation 8(a) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, for how long was Tigana entitled to remuneration for post-termination?
  • Was Tigana entitled to regulation 17 commission?

Decision

  • 9 months, yes

Reasoning

  • Fact specific question, entitled to remuneration for the current sofa season, which ended 9 months after the judgment date (October, in 9 months’ time saw the major trade shows for the next season)
  • ‘Reasonable time’ and ‘mainly attributable’ were said to be linked
  • ‘Mainly attributable’ means the same as ‘effective cause’
  • Regulation 17 (remuneration on termination, not to be confused with regulation 8 – remuneration for post-termination contracts) applies to both lawful and unlawful termination of agency relationships
  • Regulation 17 commission for termination available and calculated through a “balance sheet” of factors; a calculation now refined by Lonsdale v Howard and Hallam [2007]
RELATED CASE  Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968]

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 16th January 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy