<\/p>\n
The Commercial Agency Regulations 1993 implement an EC Directive which aims to reinforce the legal protection of commercial agents. A significant feature of the Directive is that it provides commercial agents, on the termination of their agency relationship, the right to claim a lump sum payment. [1<\/a>]<\/span> However, there has been some uncertainty surrounding the concepts which are used in determining the lump sum payment. The Directive allowed Member States to choose between \u2018indemnity\u2019 or \u2018compensation for loss\u2019 as based on the German and French laws, yet it offered little guidance on the meaning of the terms or how they should be calculated. [2<\/a>]<\/span> As the British Government did not choose between the two terms, it has been for the parties to choose and in the absence of choice, compensation has applied. It has then been for the courts to clarify the nature of damages and compensation.<\/p>\n This dissertation therefore seeks to explore the attempts by the courts to clarify the application of the compensatory rules. The hypothesis driving the focus of the dissertation is that the judiciary have raised more questions than answers when interpreting and applying the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 in the UK.<\/p>\n Research Issues and Aims<\/p>\n The main aim of this dissertation is to establish whether or not there are now clear and workable guidelines in place as to the measure of the compensatory payment under the Regulations.<\/p>\n Secondary aims include:<\/p>\n Highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the Regulations themselves;<\/p>\n Examining the clarity of the courts\u2019 approach;<\/p>\n Exploring inconsistencies between case law;<\/p>\n Noting any potential for further difficulty in the future application of the Regulations.<\/p>\n Research Methodology<\/p>\n The research methodology to be adopted throughout this dissertation is that of a combined analysis of primary and secondary materials. This will incorporate elements of critical literature review, along with detailed and critical legislative and case law evaluation.<\/p>\n Timetable (for client to alter\/complete \u2013 note if written by professional writer this timetable could be significantly shorter)<\/p>\n Month 1: Research<\/p>\n Week 1 \u2013 read, understand and make notes on the relevant part of the Commercial Agents Regulations.<\/p>\n Weeks 2 and 3 \u2013 utilise LexisNexis and Westlaw to find cases which have interpreted the Regulations. Read and make notes on these cases, highlighting significant differences between them and tracking the development of the law.<\/p>\n Week 4 \u2013 utilise legal databases and hardcopy sources to find relevant academic comment on the compensatory rules contained in the Regulations. Make notes on these opinions, noting any divergent views and any weaknesses pointed out regarding the Regulations or the courts\u2019 approach.<\/p>\n Month 2: Plan and Draft<\/p>\n Week 1 \u2013 Organise research into relevant chapters.<\/p>\n Week 2 \u2013 Draft Introduction and Chapter One.<\/p>\n Week 3 \u2013 Draft Chapter 2.<\/p>\n Week 4 \u2013 Draft Chapter 3<\/p>\n Month 3: Draft and Re-Draft<\/p>\n Week 1 \u2013 Draft Chapter 4<\/p>\n Week 2 \u2013 Draft Conclusion<\/p>\n Week 3 \u2013 Read and make notes on dissertation, areas that read well or need strengthening, check that all content is referenced properly. Ensure that no points are left unclarified or are missing completely. Consider whether further evaluation is required.<\/p>\n Week 4 \u2013 Edit and improve the dissertation.<\/p>\n Month 4: Final Edit<\/p>\n Proof read. Correct any remaining errors. Write abstract. Finalise references. Complete bibliography, table of cases, table of legislation, table of contents and formatting.<\/p>\n Hand in.<\/p>\n Key Literature<\/p>\n Bankes, C., \u201cTermination of agreements with commercial agents: the effect of the Commercial Agents Directive in the United Kingdom” (1994) ICCLR 247<\/p>\n This journal article provides an overview of the then recently enacted Regulations and in particular focuses on the compensatory payment rules. The author notes that there are (in 1994) areas of uncertainty to be resolved. He notes that the Regulations were the result of negotiation between different Member States. The author suggests that \u2018damage\u2019 may be assumed to have \u2018a much wider meaning [than] English lawyers understand by \u2018damages\u2019. The concept of \u2018indemnity\u2019 as developed from German law is also considered.<\/p>\n O\u2019Neill, A., \u201cCompensation, commercial agents and comparative law” (1997) SLT 141<\/p>\n This article provides a more in depth analysis of the origin and interpretation of \u2018indemnity\u2019 (German) and \u2018compensation\u2019 (French). It then goes on to provide a brief overview and discussion of early case law on the interpretation of the Regulations. This author suggests that as a general rule the guideline for compensatory payment should, where there is no fault on the part of the agent, be two years\u2019 gross commission regardless of questions of mitigation or proof of actual loss.<\/p>\n Saintier, S., \u201cA remarkable understanding and application of the protective stance of the Agency Regulations by the English courts” (2001) JBL 540<\/p>\n This article notes the development of the law relating to the compensatory rules contained in the Regulations. It examines the interpretation of \u2018commercial agents\u2019 and the application of the Regulations. The article then goes on to track the case law to the date of writing (2001) and generally praises the courts\u2019 approach to what the author perceives as two problems: the differences between provision for indemnity and compensation; and, the interpretation of \u2018termination\u2019. The author considers that the courts, when considering the awards to make, have generally demonstrated understanding and provided clarity. However, the author then opines that the case of Jeremy Duffen v FRA Bo SpA \u2018raises doubts\u2019.<\/p>\n Macgregor, L., \u201cCompensation for commercial agents: an end to plucking figures from the air?” (2008) Edin LR 86<\/p>\n