- Crane was the agent of Sky In-Home Service (Sky), selling and installing “Sky” television boxes to consumers
- This defendant (Sky) did not deal with the subscription side of Sky television services, only the boxes
- Sky lawfully dismissed Crane on the basis that he was misleading customers into believing that he offered sky warranties to the boxes, when in fact the warranties were only his to issue
- Crane claimed both remuneration as a result of commercial agent protections and that his agency agreement extended to the supply of “Sky +” television boxes following offer letters sent out to him by Sky
- Was Crane entitled to extra remuneration?
- Crane did sell goods (Sky boxes) as opposed to services, and so qualified for protection under the regulations
- The “Sky +” Box offer letters did not extend Crane’s agency agreement to allow greater commission
- As Crane was merely an agent for the sale of Sky boxes, which were sold at a loss to encourage consumers to pay for Sky Digital subscription services, his activities were considered secondary within the meaning of the Schedule in the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993