2. INTRODUCTORY:
SAGAL VS ATELIER BUNZ
Mr. Sagal was the seller of Bunz U.K.
Mr. Sagal used to take orders of Bunz.
Mr. Sagal used to sell Bunz’s product in U.K.
3. FACTS:
SAGAL VS ATELIER BUNZ
Mr. Sagal entered into an unwritten
agreement with Atlerier Bunz in Germany.
According to the agreement Mr. Sagal would
take orders from U.K for Bunz in Germany.
After the termination, Mr. Sagal asked Bunz
for indemnity/compensation as defined in
Regulation 17 of Commercial Agent
regulations 1993.
4. FACTS
(Agreement)
1.Mr. Sagal would take orders from UK customers and
fax them to Bunz in Germany.
2.Bunz would then deliver the jewellery to Mr Sagal
and invoice him at 20% less than its wholesale price.
3.Mr. Sagal would deliver the jewellery to the
customers and invoice them with his own “Bunz UK”
invoice.
Mr. Sagal’s customers had 30 days to pay him, whilst
Bunz Germany’s invoices were payable in 60 days.
5. SUBMISSION BY SAGAL
The representative of Mr. Sagal representated that:
The Bunz dictated the resale price.
The Bunz insured the samples.
Sagal provided the list of customers.
By the point it is clear that Mr. Sagal was a commercial
agent of Bunz U.K.
6. SUBMISSION BY BUNZ
The representative of Bunz representated that:
Mr. Sagal was not his commercial agent as he didn’t
dictated the resale price.
Mr. Sagal bought the jewellery from the Bunz and sold
under a separate contract.
7. DECISION
SAGAL VS ATELIER BUNZ
Mr. Sagal couldn’t prove himself as an
commercial agent.
Because he couldn’t meet the requirements
given in the Commercial Agent Regulations
1993.(Regulation no. 2).
He had no authority to negotiate sales.
8. Decision
(Council Directive) Regulations 1993
2.(1) In these Regulations
“commercial agent” means a self-employed
intermediary who has continuing authority to
negotiate the sale or purchase of goods on
behalf of another person (the “principal”), or
to negotiate and conclude the sale or
purchase of goods on behalf of and in the
name of that principal; but shall be
understood as not including in particular: