NDA- Acuerdos de confidencialidad y Memorandum of Understanding: ¿cuál es la diferencia y cuándo utilizarlos?

30 de enero de 2023

  • Italia
  • Contratos

Summary

The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

What I am talking about in this article:

  • What is the supply framework agreement?
  • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
  • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
  • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
  • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
  • The content of the supply framework agreement
  • Price revision clause and hardship
  • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
  • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
  • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

What is a framework supply agreement?

It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

The most important clauses are:

  • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
  • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
  • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
  • the schedule of supplies
  • the delivery times
  • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
  • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
  • cases of Hardship
  • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
  • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
  • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

The international sales contract and the first instance decision

A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

The judgment of appeal

The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

  • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
  • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

The ruling of the Supreme Court

The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

Conclusions

What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

  • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
  • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
  • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
  • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
  • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
  • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
  • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

Por qué es importante

La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

  • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
  • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
  • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
  • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
  • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
  • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
  • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
  • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

¿Cómo proceder?

  • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

Objeción frecuente

«Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

  • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
  • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

  • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
  • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

  • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

La aplicación del AfCFTA

En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

  • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
  • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
  • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
  • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

Legalmondo Africa Desk

Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

Cómo funciona

  • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
  • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

Póngase en contacto para saber más.

Summary

Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

Price increase in a business relationship

The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

  • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
  • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
  • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

Price increase in a framework contract

If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

  • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
  • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
  • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

  • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
  • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
  • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

  • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
  • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
  • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

Key takeaways:

  • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
  • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
  • document the causes of the price increase;
  • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
  • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

Summary

By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

Introduction

With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

Scope of application

The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

Contractual requirements

Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

Recommended activities

The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

  • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
  • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

Resumen

Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

 Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

Roberto Luzi Crivellini

Áreas de práctica

  • Arbitraje
  • Contratos de distribución
  • Comercio internacional
  • Derecho Internacional Privado
  • Derecho Inmobiliario
Contáctanos Roberto

La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

Distribution Agreements in Mexico

Contacta con Roberto





    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

    La Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (AfCFTA)

    5 de enero de 2023

    • Africa
    • Contratos
    • Contratos de distribución

    Summary

    The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

    The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

    What I am talking about in this article:

    • What is the supply framework agreement?
    • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
    • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
    • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
    • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
    • The content of the supply framework agreement
    • Price revision clause and hardship
    • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
    • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
    • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

    What is a framework supply agreement?

    It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

    It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

    After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

    Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

    What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

    It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

    In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

    By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

    This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

    What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

    Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

    The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

    The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

    When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

    It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

    The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

    Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

    When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

    This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

    Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

    What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

    There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

    Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

    The most important clauses are:

    • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
    • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
    • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
    • the schedule of supplies
    • the delivery times
    • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
    • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
    • cases of Hardship
    • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
    • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
    • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

    How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

    A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

    In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

    To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

    How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

    Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

    The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

    A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

    If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

    The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

    Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

    The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

    A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

    The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

    If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

    Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

    Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

    The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

    In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

    Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

    A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

    Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

    The international sales contract and the first instance decision

    A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

    The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

    In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

    The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

    The judgment of appeal

    The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

    • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
    • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

    The ruling of the Supreme Court

    The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

    However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

    So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

    The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

    The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

    Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

    The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

    It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

    In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

    Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

    Conclusions

    What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

    • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
    • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
    • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
    • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
    • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
    • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
    • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

    In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

    This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

    Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

    Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

    Por qué es importante

    La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

    Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

    • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
    • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
    • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
    • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
    • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
    • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
    • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
    • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

    Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

    ¿Cómo proceder?

    • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

    Objeción frecuente

    «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

    • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
    • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

    ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

    • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
    • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

    Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

    • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

    Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

    Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

    África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

    Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

    Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

    ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

    La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

    El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

    La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

    La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

    El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

    Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

    Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

    El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

    La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

    El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

    Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

    Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

    La aplicación del AfCFTA

    En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

    Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

    Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

    Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

    En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

    • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
    • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
    • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
    • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

    Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

    El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

    Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

    Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

    Legalmondo Africa Desk

    Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

    También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

    Cómo funciona

    • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
    • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

    Póngase en contacto para saber más.

    Summary

    Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

    Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

    Price increase in a business relationship

    The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

    In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

    A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

    • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
    • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
    • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

    Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

    Price increase in a framework contract

    If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

    In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

    Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

    • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
    • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
    • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

    The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

    • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
    • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
    • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

    The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

    • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
    • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
    • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

    Key takeaways:

    • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
    • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
    • document the causes of the price increase;
    • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
    • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

    Summary

    By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

    The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

    Introduction

    With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

    The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

    Scope of application

    The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

    It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

    It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

    Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

    The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

    In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

    Contractual requirements

    Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

    Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

    Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

    Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

    A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

    The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

    The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

    Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

    The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

    Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

    The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

    The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

    Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

    A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

    Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

    The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

    Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

    The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

    In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

    Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

    Recommended activities

    The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

    • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
    • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

    In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

    The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

    The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

    It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

    The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

    The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

    Resumen

    Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

    Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

    Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

    Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

    Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

    Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

    Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

    Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

    Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

    Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

    ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

    ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

    Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

    ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

    Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

    Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

    La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

    Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

     Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

    Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

    Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

    Christian Ule

    Áreas de práctica

    • Arbitraje
    • Contratos
    • Derecho Societario
    • Contratos de distribución
    • Comercio internacional
    Contáctanos Christian

    La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

    Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

    Distribution Agreements in Mexico

    Contacta con Christian





      Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
      Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

      France: Review and renegotiation of price in case of costs increase

      5 de mayo de 2022

      • Francia
      • Contratos
      • Contratos de distribución

      Summary

      The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

      The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

      What I am talking about in this article:

      • What is the supply framework agreement?
      • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
      • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
      • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
      • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
      • The content of the supply framework agreement
      • Price revision clause and hardship
      • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
      • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
      • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

      What is a framework supply agreement?

      It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

      It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

      After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

      Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

      What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

      It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

      In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

      By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

      This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

      What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

      Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

      The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

      The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

      When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

      It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

      The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

      Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

      When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

      This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

      Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

      What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

      There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

      Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

      The most important clauses are:

      • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
      • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
      • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
      • the schedule of supplies
      • the delivery times
      • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
      • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
      • cases of Hardship
      • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
      • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
      • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

      How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

      A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

      In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

      To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

      How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

      Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

      The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

      A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

      If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

      The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

      Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

      The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

      A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

      The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

      If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

      Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

      Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

      The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

      In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

      Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

      A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

      Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

      The international sales contract and the first instance decision

      A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

      The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

      In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

      The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

      The judgment of appeal

      The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

      • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
      • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

      The ruling of the Supreme Court

      The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

      However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

      So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

      The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

      The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

      Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

      The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

      It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

      In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

      Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

      Conclusions

      What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

      • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
      • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
      • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
      • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
      • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
      • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
      • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

      In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

      This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

      Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

      Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

      Por qué es importante

      La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

      Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

      • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
      • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
      • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
      • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
      • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
      • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
      • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
      • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

      Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

      ¿Cómo proceder?

      • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

      Objeción frecuente

      «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

      • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
      • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

      ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

      • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
      • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

      Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

      • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

      Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

      Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

      África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

      Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

      Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

      ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

      La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

      El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

      La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

      La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

      El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

      Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

      Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

      El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

      La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

      El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

      Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

      Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

      La aplicación del AfCFTA

      En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

      Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

      Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

      Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

      En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

      • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
      • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
      • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
      • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

      Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

      El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

      Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

      Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

      Legalmondo Africa Desk

      Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

      También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

      Cómo funciona

      • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
      • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

      Póngase en contacto para saber más.

      Summary

      Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

      Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

      Price increase in a business relationship

      The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

      In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

      A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

      • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
      • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
      • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

      Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

      Price increase in a framework contract

      If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

      In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

      Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

      • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
      • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
      • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

      The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

      • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
      • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
      • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

      The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

      • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
      • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
      • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

      Key takeaways:

      • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
      • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
      • document the causes of the price increase;
      • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
      • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

      Summary

      By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

      The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

      Introduction

      With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

      The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

      Scope of application

      The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

      It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

      It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

      Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

      The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

      In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

      Contractual requirements

      Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

      Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

      Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

      Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

      A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

      The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

      The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

      Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

      The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

      Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

      The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

      The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

      Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

      A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

      Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

      The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

      Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

      The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

      In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

      Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

      Recommended activities

      The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

      • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
      • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

      In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

      The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

      The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

      It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

      The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

      The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

      Resumen

      Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

      Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

      Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

      Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

      Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

      Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

      Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

      Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

      Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

      Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

      ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

      ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

      Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

      ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

      Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

      Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

      La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

      Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

       Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

      Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

      Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

      Christophe Hery

      Áreas de práctica

      • Agencia
      • Antitrust
      • Arbitraje
      • Contratos de distribución
      • e-commerce
      Contáctanos Christophe

      La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

      Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

      Distribution Agreements in Mexico

      Contacta con Christophe





        Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
        Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

        Italy – New rules on unfair trading practices and contractual requirements in the agricultural and food supply chain

        9 de febrero de 2022

        • Italia
        • Agricultura
        • Contratos

        Summary

        The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

        The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

        What I am talking about in this article:

        • What is the supply framework agreement?
        • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
        • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
        • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
        • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
        • The content of the supply framework agreement
        • Price revision clause and hardship
        • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
        • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
        • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

        What is a framework supply agreement?

        It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

        It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

        After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

        Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

        What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

        It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

        In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

        By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

        This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

        What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

        Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

        The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

        The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

        When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

        It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

        The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

        Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

        When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

        This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

        Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

        What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

        There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

        Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

        The most important clauses are:

        • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
        • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
        • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
        • the schedule of supplies
        • the delivery times
        • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
        • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
        • cases of Hardship
        • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
        • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
        • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

        How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

        A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

        In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

        To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

        How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

        Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

        The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

        A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

        If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

        The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

        Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

        The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

        A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

        The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

        If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

        Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

        Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

        The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

        In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

        Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

        A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

        Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

        The international sales contract and the first instance decision

        A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

        The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

        In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

        The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

        The judgment of appeal

        The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

        • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
        • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

        The ruling of the Supreme Court

        The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

        However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

        So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

        The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

        The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

        Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

        The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

        It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

        In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

        Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

        Conclusions

        What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

        • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
        • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
        • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
        • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
        • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
        • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
        • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

        In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

        This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

        Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

        Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

        Por qué es importante

        La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

        Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

        • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
        • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
        • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
        • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
        • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
        • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
        • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
        • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

        Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

        ¿Cómo proceder?

        • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

        Objeción frecuente

        «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

        • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
        • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

        ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

        • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
        • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

        Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

        • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

        Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

        Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

        África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

        Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

        Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

        ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

        La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

        El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

        La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

        La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

        El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

        Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

        Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

        El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

        La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

        El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

        Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

        Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

        La aplicación del AfCFTA

        En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

        Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

        Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

        Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

        En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

        • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
        • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
        • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
        • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

        Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

        El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

        Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

        Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

        Legalmondo Africa Desk

        Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

        También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

        Cómo funciona

        • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
        • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

        Póngase en contacto para saber más.

        Summary

        Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

        Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

        Price increase in a business relationship

        The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

        In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

        A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

        • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
        • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
        • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

        Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

        Price increase in a framework contract

        If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

        In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

        Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

        • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
        • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
        • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

        The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

        • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
        • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
        • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

        The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

        • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
        • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
        • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

        Key takeaways:

        • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
        • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
        • document the causes of the price increase;
        • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
        • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

        Summary

        By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

        The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

        Introduction

        With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

        The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

        Scope of application

        The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

        It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

        It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

        Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

        The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

        In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

        Contractual requirements

        Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

        Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

        Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

        Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

        A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

        The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

        The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

        Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

        The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

        Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

        The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

        The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

        Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

        A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

        Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

        The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

        Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

        The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

        In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

        Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

        Recommended activities

        The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

        • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
        • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

        In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

        The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

        The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

        It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

        The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

        The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

        Resumen

        Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

        Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

        Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

        Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

        Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

        Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

        Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

        Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

        Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

        Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

        ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

        ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

        Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

        ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

        Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

        Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

        La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

        Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

         Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

        Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

        Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

        Simone Rossi

        Áreas de práctica

        • Derecho Societario
        • Contratos
        • Fusiones y adquisiciones
        • Derecho Concursal
        • Capital Inversión
        Contáctanos Simone

        La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

        Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

        Distribution Agreements in Mexico

        Contacta con Simone





          Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
          Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

          France | Arbitration clauses in international contracts with consumers are not enforceable

          16 de febrero de 2021

          • Francia
          • Arbitraje
          • Contratos
          • Litigios

          Summary

          The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

          The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

          What I am talking about in this article:

          • What is the supply framework agreement?
          • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
          • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
          • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
          • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
          • The content of the supply framework agreement
          • Price revision clause and hardship
          • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
          • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
          • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

          What is a framework supply agreement?

          It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

          It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

          After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

          Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

          What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

          It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

          In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

          By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

          This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

          What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

          Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

          The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

          The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

          When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

          It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

          The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

          Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

          When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

          This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

          Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

          What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

          There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

          Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

          The most important clauses are:

          • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
          • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
          • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
          • the schedule of supplies
          • the delivery times
          • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
          • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
          • cases of Hardship
          • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
          • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
          • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

          How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

          A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

          In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

          To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

          How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

          Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

          The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

          A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

          If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

          The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

          Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

          The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

          A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

          The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

          If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

          Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

          Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

          The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

          In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

          Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

          A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

          Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

          The international sales contract and the first instance decision

          A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

          The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

          In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

          The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

          The judgment of appeal

          The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

          • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
          • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

          The ruling of the Supreme Court

          The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

          However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

          So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

          The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

          The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

          Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

          The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

          It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

          In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

          Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

          Conclusions

          What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

          • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
          • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
          • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
          • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
          • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
          • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
          • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

          In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

          This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

          Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

          Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

          Por qué es importante

          La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

          Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

          • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
          • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
          • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
          • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
          • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
          • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
          • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
          • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

          Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

          ¿Cómo proceder?

          • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

          Objeción frecuente

          «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

          • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
          • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

          ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

          • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
          • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

          Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

          • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

          Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

          Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

          África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

          Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

          Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

          ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

          La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

          El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

          La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

          La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

          El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

          Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

          Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

          El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

          La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

          El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

          Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

          Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

          La aplicación del AfCFTA

          En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

          Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

          Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

          Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

          En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

          • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
          • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
          • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
          • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

          Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

          El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

          Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

          Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

          Legalmondo Africa Desk

          Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

          También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

          Cómo funciona

          • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
          • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

          Póngase en contacto para saber más.

          Summary

          Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

          Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

          Price increase in a business relationship

          The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

          In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

          A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

          • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
          • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
          • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

          Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

          Price increase in a framework contract

          If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

          In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

          Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

          • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
          • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
          • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

          The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

          • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
          • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
          • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

          The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

          • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
          • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
          • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

          Key takeaways:

          • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
          • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
          • document the causes of the price increase;
          • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
          • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

          Summary

          By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

          The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

          Introduction

          With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

          The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

          Scope of application

          The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

          It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

          It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

          Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

          The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

          In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

          Contractual requirements

          Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

          Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

          Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

          Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

          A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

          The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

          The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

          Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

          The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

          Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

          The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

          The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

          Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

          A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

          Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

          The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

          Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

          The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

          In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

          Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

          Recommended activities

          The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

          • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
          • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

          In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

          The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

          The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

          It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

          The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

          The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

          Resumen

          Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

          Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

          Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

          Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

          Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

          Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

          Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

          Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

          Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

          Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

          ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

          ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

          Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

          ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

          Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

          Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

          La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

          Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

           Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

          Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

          Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

          Alexandre Malan

          Áreas de práctica

          • Arbitraje
          • Contratos de distribución
          • Seguros
          • Comercio internacional
          • Derecho Internacional Privado
          Contáctanos Alexandre

          La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

          Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

          Distribution Agreements in Mexico

          Contacta con Alexandre





            Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
            Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

            España | La indemnización por clientela para Agentes y Distribuidores

            2 de febrero de 2021

            • España
            • Agencia
            • Contratos
            • Contratos de distribución

            Summary

            The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

            The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

            What I am talking about in this article:

            • What is the supply framework agreement?
            • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
            • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
            • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
            • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
            • The content of the supply framework agreement
            • Price revision clause and hardship
            • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
            • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
            • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

            What is a framework supply agreement?

            It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

            It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

            After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

            Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

            What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

            It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

            In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

            By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

            This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

            What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

            Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

            The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

            The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

            When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

            It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

            The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

            Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

            When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

            This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

            Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

            What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

            There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

            Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

            The most important clauses are:

            • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
            • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
            • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
            • the schedule of supplies
            • the delivery times
            • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
            • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
            • cases of Hardship
            • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
            • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
            • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

            How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

            A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

            In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

            To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

            How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

            Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

            The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

            A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

            If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

            The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

            Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

            The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

            A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

            The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

            If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

            Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

            Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

            The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

            In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

            Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

            A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

            Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

            The international sales contract and the first instance decision

            A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

            The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

            In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

            The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

            The judgment of appeal

            The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

            • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
            • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

            The ruling of the Supreme Court

            The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

            However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

            So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

            The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

            The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

            Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

            The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

            It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

            In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

            Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

            Conclusions

            What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

            • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
            • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
            • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
            • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
            • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
            • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
            • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

            In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

            This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

            Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

            Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

            Por qué es importante

            La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

            Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

            • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
            • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
            • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
            • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
            • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
            • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
            • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
            • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

            Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

            ¿Cómo proceder?

            • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

            Objeción frecuente

            «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

            • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
            • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

            ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

            • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
            • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

            Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

            • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

            Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

            Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

            África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

            Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

            Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

            ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

            La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

            El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

            La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

            La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

            El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

            Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

            Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

            El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

            La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

            El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

            Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

            Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

            La aplicación del AfCFTA

            En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

            Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

            Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

            Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

            En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

            • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
            • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
            • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
            • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

            Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

            El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

            Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

            Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

            Legalmondo Africa Desk

            Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

            También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

            Cómo funciona

            • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
            • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

            Póngase en contacto para saber más.

            Summary

            Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

            Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

            Price increase in a business relationship

            The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

            In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

            A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

            • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
            • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
            • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

            Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

            Price increase in a framework contract

            If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

            In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

            Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

            • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
            • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
            • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

            The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

            • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
            • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
            • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

            The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

            • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
            • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
            • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

            Key takeaways:

            • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
            • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
            • document the causes of the price increase;
            • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
            • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

            Summary

            By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

            The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

            Introduction

            With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

            The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

            Scope of application

            The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

            It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

            It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

            Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

            The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

            In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

            Contractual requirements

            Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

            Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

            Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

            Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

            A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

            The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

            The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

            Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

            The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

            Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

            The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

            The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

            Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

            A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

            Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

            The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

            Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

            The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

            In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

            Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

            Recommended activities

            The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

            • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
            • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

            In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

            The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

            The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

            It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

            The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

            The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

            Resumen

            Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

            Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

            Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

            Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

            Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

            Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

            Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

            Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

            Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

            Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

            ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

            ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

            Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

            ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

            Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

            Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

            La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

            Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

             Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

            Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

            Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

            Ignacio Alonso

            Áreas de práctica

            • Agencia
            • Derecho Societario
            • Contratos de distribución
            • Franquicia
            Contáctanos Ignacio

            La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

            Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

            Distribution Agreements in Mexico

            Contacta con Ignacio





              Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
              Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

              Brexit | Jurisdiction and enforcement – What you need to know

              27 de enero de 2021

              • Inglaterra
              • Contratos
              • Litigios

              Summary

              The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

              The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

              What I am talking about in this article:

              • What is the supply framework agreement?
              • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
              • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
              • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
              • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
              • The content of the supply framework agreement
              • Price revision clause and hardship
              • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
              • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
              • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

              What is a framework supply agreement?

              It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

              It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

              After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

              Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

              What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

              It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

              In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

              By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

              This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

              What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

              Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

              The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

              The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

              When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

              It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

              The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

              Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

              When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

              This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

              Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

              What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

              There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

              Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

              The most important clauses are:

              • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
              • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
              • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
              • the schedule of supplies
              • the delivery times
              • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
              • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
              • cases of Hardship
              • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
              • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
              • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

              How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

              A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

              In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

              To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

              How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

              Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

              The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

              A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

              If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

              The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

              Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

              The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

              A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

              The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

              If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

              Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

              Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

              The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

              In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

              Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

              A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

              Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

              The international sales contract and the first instance decision

              A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

              The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

              In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

              The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

              The judgment of appeal

              The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

              • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
              • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

              The ruling of the Supreme Court

              The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

              However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

              So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

              The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

              The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

              Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

              The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

              It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

              In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

              Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

              Conclusions

              What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

              • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
              • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
              • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
              • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
              • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
              • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
              • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

              In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

              This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

              Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

              Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

              Por qué es importante

              La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

              Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

              • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
              • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
              • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
              • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
              • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
              • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
              • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
              • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

              Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

              ¿Cómo proceder?

              • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

              Objeción frecuente

              «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

              • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
              • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

              ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

              • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
              • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

              Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

              • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

              Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

              Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

              África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

              Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

              Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

              ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

              La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

              El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

              La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

              La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

              El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

              Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

              Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

              El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

              La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

              El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

              Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

              Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

              La aplicación del AfCFTA

              En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

              Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

              Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

              Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

              En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

              • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
              • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
              • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
              • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

              Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

              El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

              Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

              Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

              Legalmondo Africa Desk

              Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

              También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

              Cómo funciona

              • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
              • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

              Póngase en contacto para saber más.

              Summary

              Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

              Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

              Price increase in a business relationship

              The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

              In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

              A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

              • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
              • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
              • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

              Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

              Price increase in a framework contract

              If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

              In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

              Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

              • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
              • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
              • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

              The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

              • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
              • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
              • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

              The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

              • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
              • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
              • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

              Key takeaways:

              • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
              • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
              • document the causes of the price increase;
              • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
              • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

              Summary

              By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

              The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

              Introduction

              With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

              The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

              Scope of application

              The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

              It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

              It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

              Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

              The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

              In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

              Contractual requirements

              Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

              Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

              Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

              Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

              A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

              The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

              The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

              Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

              The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

              Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

              The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

              The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

              Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

              A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

              Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

              The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

              Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

              The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

              In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

              Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

              Recommended activities

              The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

              • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
              • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

              In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

              The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

              The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

              It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

              The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

              The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

              Resumen

              Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

              Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

              Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

              Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

              Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

              Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

              Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

              Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

              Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

              Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

              ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

              ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

              Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

              ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

              Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

              Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

              La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

              Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

               Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

              Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

              Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

              Richard Samuel

              Áreas de práctica

              • Arbitraje
              • Reclamación de deudas
              • Derecho Internacional Privado
              Contáctanos Richard

              La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

              Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

              Distribution Agreements in Mexico

              Contacta con Richard





                Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

                M&A, Force Majeure and Covid19 according to the Netherlands Commercial Court

                6 de mayo de 2020

                • Países Bajos
                • Contratos
                • Litigios
                • M&A

                Summary

                The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

                The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

                What I am talking about in this article:

                • What is the supply framework agreement?
                • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
                • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
                • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
                • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
                • The content of the supply framework agreement
                • Price revision clause and hardship
                • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
                • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
                • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

                What is a framework supply agreement?

                It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

                It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

                After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

                Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

                What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

                It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

                In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

                By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

                This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

                What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

                Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

                The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

                The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

                When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

                It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

                The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

                Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

                When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

                This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

                Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

                What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

                There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

                Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

                The most important clauses are:

                • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
                • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
                • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
                • the schedule of supplies
                • the delivery times
                • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
                • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
                • cases of Hardship
                • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
                • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
                • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

                How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

                A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

                In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

                To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

                How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

                Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

                The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

                A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

                If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

                The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

                Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

                The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

                A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

                The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

                If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

                Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

                Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

                The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

                In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

                Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

                A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

                Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

                The international sales contract and the first instance decision

                A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

                The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

                In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

                The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

                The judgment of appeal

                The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

                • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
                • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

                The ruling of the Supreme Court

                The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

                However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

                So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

                The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

                The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

                Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

                The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

                It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

                In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

                Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

                Conclusions

                What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

                • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
                • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
                • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
                • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
                • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
                • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
                • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

                In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

                This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

                Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

                Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

                Por qué es importante

                La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

                Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

                • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
                • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
                • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
                • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
                • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
                • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
                • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
                • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

                Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

                ¿Cómo proceder?

                • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

                Objeción frecuente

                «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

                • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
                • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

                ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

                • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
                • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

                Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

                • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

                Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

                Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

                África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

                Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

                Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

                ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

                La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

                El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

                La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

                La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

                El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

                Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

                Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

                El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

                La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

                El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

                Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

                Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

                La aplicación del AfCFTA

                En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

                Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

                Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

                Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

                En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

                • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
                • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
                • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
                • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

                Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

                El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

                Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

                Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

                Legalmondo Africa Desk

                Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

                También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

                Cómo funciona

                • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
                • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

                Póngase en contacto para saber más.

                Summary

                Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

                Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

                Price increase in a business relationship

                The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

                In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

                A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

                • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
                • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
                • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

                Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

                Price increase in a framework contract

                If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

                In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

                Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

                • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
                • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
                • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

                The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

                • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
                • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
                • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

                The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

                • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
                • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
                • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

                Key takeaways:

                • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
                • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
                • document the causes of the price increase;
                • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
                • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

                Summary

                By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

                The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

                Introduction

                With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

                The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

                Scope of application

                The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

                It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

                It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

                Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

                The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

                In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

                Contractual requirements

                Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

                Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

                Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

                Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

                A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

                The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

                The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

                Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

                The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

                Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

                The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

                The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

                Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

                A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

                Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

                The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

                Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

                The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

                In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

                Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

                Recommended activities

                The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

                • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
                • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

                In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

                Resumen

                Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

                Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

                Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

                Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

                Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

                Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

                Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

                Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

                Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

                Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

                ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

                ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

                Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

                ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

                Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

                Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

                La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

                Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

                 Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

                Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

                Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

                Kai Guldemond

                Áreas de práctica

                • Contratos
                • Derecho Societario
                • Comercio internacional
                • Fusiones y adquisiciones
                • Capital Inversión
                Contáctanos Kai

                La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

                Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

                Distribution Agreements in Mexico

                Contacta con Kai





                  Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                  Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

                  Spain | Covid 19 – Measures for payment of the rent for commercial and industrial premises

                  18 de abril de 2020

                  • España
                  • Contratos
                  • Derecho Inmobiliario

                  Summary

                  The framework supply contract is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier) that take place over a certain period of time. This agreement determines the main elements of future contracts such as price, product volumes, delivery terms, technical or quality specifications, and the duration of the agreement.

                  The framework contract is useful for ensuring continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a certain product that is essential for planning industrial or commercial activity. While the general terms and conditions of purchase or sale are the rules that apply to all suppliers or customers of the company. The framework contract is advisable to be concluded with essential suppliers for the continuity of business activity, in general or in relation to a particular project.

                  What I am talking about in this article:

                  • What is the supply framework agreement?
                  • What is the function of the supply framework agreement?
                  • The difference with the general conditions of sale or purchase
                  • When to enter a purchase framework agreement?
                  • When is it beneficial to conclude a sales framework agreement?
                  • The content of the supply framework agreement
                  • Price revision clause and hardship
                  • Delivery terms in the supply framework agreement
                  • The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts
                  • International sales: applicable law and dispute resolution arrangements

                  What is a framework supply agreement?

                  It is an agreement that regulates a series of future sales and purchases between two parties (customer and supplier), which will take place over a certain period.

                  It is therefore referred to as a «framework agreement» because it is an agreement that establishes the rules of a future series of sales and purchase contracts, determining their primary elements (such as the price, the volumes of products to be sold and purchased, the delivery terms of the products, and the duration of the contract).

                  After concluding the framework agreement, the parties will exchange orders and order confirmations, entering a series of autonomous sales contracts without re-discussing the covenants already defined in the framework agreement.

                  Depending on one’s point of view, this agreement is also called a sales framework agreement (if the seller/supplier uses it) or a purchasing framework agreement (if the customer proposes it).

                  What is the function of the framework supply agreement?

                  It is helpful to arrange a framework agreement in all cases where the parties intend to proceed with a series of purchases/sales of products over time and are interested in giving stability to the commercial agreement by determining its main elements.

                  In particular, the purchase framework agreement may be helpful to a company that wishes to ensure continuity of supply from one or more suppliers of a specific product that is essential for planning its industrial or commercial activity (raw material, semi-finished product, component).

                  By concluding the framework agreement, the company can obtain, for example, a commitment from the supplier to supply a particular minimum volume of products, at a specific price, with agreed terms and technical specifications, for a certain period.

                  This agreement is also beneficial, at the same time, to the seller/supplier, which can plan sales for that period and organize, in turn, the supply chain that enables it to procure the raw materials and components necessary to produce the products.

                  What is the difference between a purchase or sales framework agreement and the general terms and conditions?

                  Whereas the framework agreement is an agreement that is used with one or more suppliers for a specific product and a certain time frame, determining the essential elements of future contracts, the general purchase (or sales) conditions are the rules that apply to all the company’s suppliers (or customers).

                  The first agreement, therefore, is negotiated and defined on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the general conditions are prepared unilaterally by the company, and the customers or suppliers (depending on whether they are sales or purchase conditions) adhere to and accept that the general conditions apply to the individual order and/or future contracts.

                  The two agreements might also co-exist: in that case; it is a good idea to specify which contract should prevail in the event of a discrepancy between the different provisions (usually, this hierarchy is envisaged, ranging from the special to the general: order – order confirmation; framework agreement; general terms and conditions of purchase).

                  When is it important to conclude a purchase framework agreement?

                  It is beneficial to conclude this agreement when dealing with a mono-supplier or a supplier that would be very difficult to replace if it stopped selling products to the purchasing company.

                  The risks one aims to avoid or diminish are so-called stock-outs, i.e., supply interruptions due to the supplier’s lack of availability of products or because the products are available, but the parties cannot agree on the delivery time or sales price.

                  Another result that can be achieved is to bind a strategic supplier for a certain period by agreeing that it will reserve an agreed share of production for the buyer on predetermined terms and conditions and avoid competition with offers from third parties interested in the products for the duration of the agreement.

                  When is it helpful to conclude a sales framework agreement?

                  This agreement allows the seller/supplier to plan sales to a particular customer and thus to plan and organize its production and logistical capacity for the agreed period, avoiding extra costs or delays.

                  Planning sales also makes it possible to correctly manage financial obligations and cash flows with a medium-term vision, harmonizing commitments and investments with the sales to one’s customers.

                  What is the content of the supply framework agreement?

                  There is no standard model of this agreement, which originated from business practice to meet the requirements indicated above.

                  Generally, the agreement provides for a fixed period (e.g., 12 months) in which the parties undertake to conclude a series of purchases and sales of products, determining the price and terms of supply and the main covenants of future sales contracts.

                  The most important clauses are:

                  • the identification of products and technical specifications (often identified in an annex)
                  • the minimum/maximum volume of supplies
                  • the possible obligation to purchase/sell a minimum/maximum volume of products
                  • the schedule of supplies
                  • the delivery times
                  • the determination of the price and the conditions for its possible modification (see also the next paragraph)
                  • impediments to performance (Force Majeure)
                  • cases of Hardship
                  • penalties for delay or non-performance or for failure to achieve the agreed volumes
                  • the hierarchy between the framework agreement and the orders and any other contracts between the parties
                  • applicable law and dispute resolution (especially in international agreements)

                  How to handle price revision in a supply contract?

                  A crucial clause, especially in times of strong fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, transport, and energy, is the price revision clause.

                  In the absence of an agreement on this issue, the parties bear the risk of a price increase by undertaking to respect the conditions initially agreed upon; except in exceptional cases (where the fluctuation is strong, affects a short period, and is caused by unforeseeable events), it isn’t straightforward to invoke the supervening excessive onerousness, which allows renegotiating the price, or the contract to be terminated.

                  To avoid the uncertainty generated by price fluctuations, it is advisable to agree in the contract on the mechanisms for revising the price (e.g., automatic indexing following the quotation of raw materials). The so-called Hardship or Excessive Onerousness clause establishes what price fluctuation limits are accepted by the parties and what happens if the variations go beyond these limits, providing for the obligation to renegotiate the price or the termination of the contract if no agreement is reached within a certain period.

                  How to manage delivery terms in a supply agreement?

                  Another fundamental pact in a medium to long-term supply relationship concerns delivery terms. In this case, it is necessary to reconcile the purchaser’s interest in respecting the agreed dates with the supplier’s interest in avoiding claims for damages in the event of a delay, especially in the case of sales requiring intercontinental transport.

                  The first thing to be clarified in this regard concerns the nature of delivery deadlines: are they essential or indicative? In the first case, the party affected has the right to terminate (i.e., wind up) the agreement in the event of non-compliance with the term; in the second case, due diligence, information, and timely notification of delays may be required, whereas termination is not a remedy that may be automatically invoked in the event of a delay.

                  A useful instrument in this regard is the penalty clause: with this covenant, it is established that for each day/week/month of delay, a sum of money is due by way of damages in favor of the party harmed by the delay.

                  If quantified correctly and not excessively, the penalty is helpful for both parties because it makes it possible to predict the damages that may be claimed for the delay, quantifying them in a fair and determined sum. Consequently, the seller is not exposed to claims for damages related to factors beyond his control. At the same time, the buyer can easily calculate the compensation for the delay without the need for further proof.

                  The same mechanism, among other things, may be adopted to govern the buyer’s delay in accepting delivery of the goods.

                  Finally, it is a good idea to specify the limit of the penalty (e.g.,10 percent of the price of the goods) and a maximum period of grace for the delay, beyond which the party concerned is entitled to terminate the contract by retaining the penalty.

                  The Force Majeure clause in international sales contracts

                  A situation that is often confused with excessive onerousness, but is, in fact, quite different, is that of Force Majeure, i.e., the supervening impossibility of performance of the contractual obligation due to any event beyond the reasonable control of the party affected, which could not have been reasonably foreseen and the effects of which cannot be overcome by reasonable efforts.

                  The function of this clause is to set forth clearly when the parties consider that Force Majeure may be invoked, what specific events are included (e.g., a lock-down of the production plant by order of the authority), and what are the consequences for the parties’ obligations (e.g., suspension of the obligation for a certain period, as long as the cause of impossibility of performance lasts, after which the party affected by performance may declare its intention to dissolve the contract).

                  If the wording of this clause is general (as is often the case), the risk is that it will be of little use; it is also advisable to check that the regulation of force majeure complies with the law applicable to the contract (here an in-depth analysis indicating the regime provided for by 42 national laws).

                  Applicable law and dispute resolution clauses

                  Suppose the customer or supplier is based abroad. In that case, several significant differences must be borne in mind: the first is the agreement’s language, which must be intelligible to the foreign party, therefore usually in English or another language familiar to the parties, possibly also in two languages with parallel text.

                  The second issue concerns the applicable law, which should be expressly indicated in the agreement. This subject matter is vast, and here we can say that the decision on the applicable law must be made on a case-by-case basis, intentionally: in fact, it is not always convenient to recall the application of the law of one’s own country.

                  In most international sales contracts, the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods («CISG») applies, a uniform law that is balanced, clear, and easy to understand. Therefore, it is not advisable to exclude it.

                  Finally, in a supply framework agreement with an international supplier, it is important to identify the method of dispute resolution: no solution fits all. Choosing a country’s jurisdiction is not always the right decision (indeed, it can often prove counterproductive).

                  A case recently decided by the Italian Supreme Court clarifies what the risks are for those who sell their products abroad without having paid adequate attention to the legal part of the contract (Order, Sec. 2, No. 36144 of 2022, published 12/12/2022).

                  Why it’s important: in contracts, care must be taken not only with what is written, but also with what is not written, otherwise there is a risk that implied warranties of merchantability will apply, which may make the product unsuitable for use, even if it conforms to the technical specifications agreed upon in the contract.

                  The international sales contract and the first instance decision

                  A German company had sued an Italian company in Italy (Court of Chieti) to have it ordered to pay the sales price of two invoices for supplies of goods (steel).

                  The Italian purchasing company had defended itself by claiming that the two invoices had been deliberately not paid, due to the non-conformity of three previous deliveries by the same German seller. It then counterclaimed for a finding of defects and a reduction in the price, to be set off against the other party’s claim, as well as damages.

                  In the first instance, the Court of Chieti had partially granted both the German seller’s demand for payment (for about half of the claim) and the buyer’s counterclaim.

                  The court-appointed technical expertise had found that the steel supplied by the seller, while conforming to the agreed data sheet, had a very low silicon value compared to the values at other manufacturers’ steel; however, the trial judge ruled out this as a genuine defect.

                  The judgment of appeal

                  The Court of Appeals of L’Aquila, appealed to the second instance by the buyer, had reached a different conclusion than the Court of First Instance, significantly reducing the amount owed by the Italian buyer, for the following reasons:

                  • the regime of «implied warranties» under Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods of 11.4.80 («CISG,» ratified in both Italy and Germany) applied, as the companies had business headquarters in two different countries, both of which were parties to the Convention;
                  • in particular, the chemical composition of the steel supplied by the seller, while not constituting a «defect» in the product (i.e., an anomaly or imperfection) was nonetheless to be considered a «lack of conformity» within the meaning of Articles 35(2)(a) and 36(1) of the CISG, as it rendered the steel unsuitable for the use for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve (also known as «warranty of merchantability»).

                  The ruling of the Supreme Court

                  The German seller then appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals’ ruling, stating in summary that, according to the CISG, the conformity or non-conformity of the goods must be assessed against what was agreed upon in the contract between the parties; and that the «warranty of merchantability» should apply only in the absence of a precise agreement of the parties on the characteristics that the product must have.

                  However, the seller’s defense continued, in this case the Italian buyer had sent a data sheet including a summary table of the various chemical elements, where it was stated that silicon should be present in a percentage not exceeding 0.45, but no minimum percentage was indicated.

                  So, the fact that the percentage of silicon was significantly lower than that found on average in steel from other suppliers could not be considered a conformity defect, since, at the contract negotiation stage, the parties exchanging the data sheet had expressly agreed only on the maximum values, thus not considering the minimum values relevant to conformity.

                  The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning and essentially upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling, rejecting the German seller’s appeal.

                  The Court recalled that, according to Article 35 first paragraph of the CISG, the seller must deliver goods whose quantity, quality and kind correspond to those stipulated in the contract and whose packaging and wrapping correspond to those stipulated in the contract; and that, for the second paragraph, «unless the parties agree otherwise, goods are in conformity with the contract only if: a) they are suitable for the uses for which goods of the same kind would ordinarily serve.»

                  Other guarantees are enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of the same standard[1] . They are commonly referred to collectively as «implied warranties.»

                  The Court noted that the warranties in question, including the one of «merchantability» just referred to, do not stand subordinate or subsidiary to contractual covenants; on the contrary, they apply unless expressly excluded by the parties.

                  It follows that, according to the Supreme Court, any intention of the parties to a sales contract to disapply the warranty of merchantability must «result from a specific provision agreed upon by the parties.«

                  In the present case, although the data sheet that was part of the contractual agreements was analytical and had included among the chemical characteristics of the material the percentage of silicon, the fact that only a maximum percentage was indicated and not also the minimum percentage was not sufficient to exclude the fact that, by virtue of the «implied guarantee» of marketability, the minimum percentage should in any case conform to the average percentage of similar products existing on the market.

                  Since the «warranty of merchantability» had not been expressly excluded between the parties by a specific contractual clause, the conformity of the goods to the contract still had to be evaluated in consideration of this implied warranty as well.

                  Conclusions

                  What should businesses that sell abroad keep in mind?

                  • In contracts for the sale of goods between companies based in two different countries, the CISG automatically applies in many cases, in preference to the domestic law of either the seller’s country or the buyer’s country.
                  • The CISG contains very important rules for the relationship between sellers and buyers, on warranties of conformity of goods with the contract and buyer’s remedies for breach of warranties.
                  • One can modify or even exclude these rules by drafting appropriate contracts or general conditions in writing.
                  • Parties may agree not to apply all or some of the «implied warranties» (possibly replacing them with contractual warranties) just as they may exclude certain remedies (e.g., exclude or limit liability for damages, within certain limits). However, they must do so in clear and explicit clauses.
                  • For the «warranty of merchantability» not to apply, according to the reasoning of the Italian Supreme Court, it is not enough not to mention it in the contract.
                  • It is not sufficient to attach an analytical description of the characteristics of the goods to the contract to exclude certain characteristics not mentioned but nevertheless present in similar products of other manufacturers, which can be used as a parameter for the conformity of the goods.
                  • Instead, it is necessary to include a clause in the contract expressly excluding this type of guarantee.

                  In other words, in contracts, one must pay attention not only to what is written but also to what is not written.

                  This case once again demonstrates the importance of drafting a proper and complete contract not only from a commercial, technical, and financial point of view but also from a legal point of view, using the expertise of a lawyer experienced in international commercial contracts.

                  Finally, it is important not to overlook applicable law and jurisdiction clauses. These aspects are unfortunately often overlooked, even in high-value negotiations, considering these clauses unimportant or even blocking for negotiation, only to regret them when litigation arises or even threatened. See an in-depth discussion here.

                  Muchos piensan que el acuerdo de confidencialidad  (NDA) es la primera y única precaución necesaria en una negociación. Esto es erróneo, porque este acuerdo sólo se refiere a una parte de la relación comercial que las partes quieren discutir o gestionar.

                  Por qué es importante

                  La función del Acuerdo de Confidencialidad es mantener la confidencialidad de cierta información que las partes pretenden intercambiar y evitar que se utilice para fines distintos de los acordados. Sin embargo, hay muchos aspectos de la negociación que no están regulados en el NDA.

                  Las principales cuestiones que deben acordarse por escrito son las siguientes:

                  • ¿por qué quieren las partes intercambiar información?
                  • ¿cuál es el objetivo final que debe alcanzarse?
                  • ¿En qué puntos generales están ya de acuerdo las partes?
                  • ¿cuánto durarán las negociaciones?
                  • ¿quién participará en las negociaciones? ¿Con qué poderes?
                  • ¿qué documentos e información se compartirán?
                  • obligaciones de exclusividad y/o no competencia durante y después de la negociación?
                  • ¿qué ley se aplica a las negociaciones y cómo se resuelven los posibles conflictos?

                  Si no se responde a estas preguntas, se corre el riesgo de que surjan malentendidos y disputas con el tiempo, especialmente en negociaciones largas y complejas con homólogos extranjeros.

                  ¿Cómo proceder?

                  • Es aconsejable que los pactos anteriores se recojan en una “Letter of Intent” («LoI») o Memorandum of Understanding («MoU»). Se trata de acuerdos preliminares cuya función es determinar el alcance de las futuras negociaciones, el calendario y las normas que deben observarse durante y después de las negociaciones.

                  Objeción frecuente

                  «Son contratos no vinculantes, ¿qué sentido tienen si las partes son libres de no cumplirlos?

                  • Algunos pactos pueden ser vinculantes (exclusividad durante la negociación, no competencia, acuerdos de resolución de litigios), y otros no (con libertad para celebrar o no el acuerdo).
                  • En cualquier caso, haber acordado la hoja de ruta de la negociación es una ventaja frente a operar sin haber fijado las líneas maestras de la negociación

                  ¿Qué ocurre si no se llega a un acuerdo?

                  • El MoU suele estipular expresamente que cada parte es libre de no finalizar la negociación, siempre que se comporte de buena fe durante las negociaciones y preserve los derechos de la otra.
                  • Hay que tener en cuenta que en caso de terminación prematura o injustificada de las negociaciones por una de las partes, la otra parte puede tener derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios (la llamada responsabilidad precontractual), si así lo prevé el acuerdo y/o la ley aplicable al contrato.

                  Entonces, ¿cuándo debe concluirse el acuerdo de confidencialidad?

                  • Puede firmarse al mismo tiempo que el MoU / LoI, o inmediatamente después, para que la determinación de la información confidencial, la forma de utilizarla, la duración de las obligaciones de confidencialidad, etc. se definan de forma coherente con el proyecto que las partes han acordado.

                  Para más información sobre el contenido de los acuerdos de confidencialidad, consulte este artículo.

                  Finalmente, tras más de 30 años de negociaciones, el mundo está ante el primer acuerdo comercial panafricano, que entró en vigor a principios de 2019: la Zona de Libre Comercio Continental Africana (African Continental Free Trade Area – AfCFTA).

                  África, con sus 55 países y unos 1.300 millones de habitantes, es el segundo continente más grande del mundo después de Asia. El potencial del continente es enorme: más del 50 % de la población africana tiene menos de 20 años y está creciendo al ritmo más rápido del mundo. Para 2050, se espera que uno de cada cuatro recién nacidos sea africano. Además, el continente es rico en suelo fértil y materias primas.

                  Para los inversores occidentales, África ha cobrado una importancia considerable en los últimos años. El auge del comercio internacional en este continente, entre otras cosas, es promovido por la iniciativa “Pacto con África” adoptada por los países del G20 en 2017, también conocida como el “Plan Marshall con África”. Su objetivo es ampliar la cooperación económica de África con los países del G20 reforzando la inversión privada.

                  Sin embargo, el comercio intraafricano actualmente ha estado estancado por causa de los aranceles intraafricanos, en parte todavía elevados, las barreras no arancelarias (non-tariff barriers – NTBs), la debilidad de las infraestructuras, la corrupción, la engorrosa burocracia, así como las normativas poco transparentes e incoherentes. Esto ha provocado que las exportaciones interregionales apenas pudieran desarrollarse y, más recientemente, solo representan el 17 % del comercio panafricano y sólo el 0,36 % del comercio mundial. Hace ya mucho tiempo que la Unión Africana (UA) incluyó en su agenda la creación de una zona comercial común.

                  ¿Qué hay detrás del AfCFTA?

                  La creación de una zona de comercio panafricana estuvo precedida de décadas de negociaciones, que finalmente desembocaron en la entrada en vigor del AfCFTA el 30 de mayo de 2019.

                  El AfCFTA es una zona de libre comercio establecida por sus miembros, que -con la excepción de Eritrea- abarca todo el continente africano y es, por tanto, la mayor zona de libre comercio del mundo por número de Estados miembros después de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

                  La estructuración detallada del mercado común fue objeto de varias negociaciones individuales, que se debatieron en las Fases I y II.

                  La Fase I comprende las negociaciones sobre tres protocolos y está casi concluida.

                  El Protocolo sobre el comercio de mercancías

                  Este protocolo prevé la eliminación del 90 % de todos los aranceles intraafricanos en todas las categorías de productos en un plazo de cinco años a partir de su entrada en vigor. De estos, hasta un 7 % de los productos pueden clasificarse como mercancías sensibles, que están sujetas a un periodo de eliminación arancelaria de diez años. Para los países menos adelantados (Least Developed Countries – LDCs), el periodo de preparación se amplía de cinco a diez años y para los productos sensibles de diez a trece años, siempre y cuando demuestren su necesidad. El 3 % restante de los aranceles queda totalmente exento del desarme arancelario.

                  Adicionalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que el requisito previo para el desarme arancelario es la delimitación clara de las normas de origen. De lo contrario, las importaciones de terceros países podrían beneficiarse de las ventajas arancelarias negociadas. Ya se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre la mayoría de las normas de origen.

                  El Protocolo sobre el Comercio de Servicios

                  La Asamblea General de l’UA ha acordado hasta ahora cinco áreas prioritarias (transporte, comunicaciones, turismo, servicios financieros y empresariales) y directrices para los compromisos aplicables a las mismas.  Hasta la fecha, 47 Estados miembros de l’UA han presentado sus ofertas de compromisos específicos y se ha completado la revisión de 28 de ellos. Además, siguen en curso las negociaciones, por ejemplo, sobre el reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales.

                  El Protocolo sobre Solución de Diferencias

                  Con el Protocolo sobre normas y procedimientos por los que se rige la solución de diferencias, el AfCFTA crea un sistema de solución de diferencias inspirado en el Entendimiento sobre Solución de Diferencias de l’OMC. En virtud del mismo, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias (Dispute Settlement Body – OSD) administra el Protocolo de Solución de Diferencias del AfCFTA y establece un Grupo Especial Adjudicador (Adjudicating Panel – Panel) y un Órgano de Apelación (Appellate Body – AB). El DSB está compuesto por un representante de cada Estado miembro e interviene en cuanto existen diferencias de opinión entre los Estados contratantes sobre la interpretación y/o aplicación del acuerdo en lo que respecta a sus derechos y obligaciones.

                  Para el resto de la Fase II están previstas negociaciones sobre política de inversión y competencia, cuestiones de propiedad intelectual, comercio en línea y mujeres y jóvenes en el comercio, cuyos resultados se reflejarán en posteriores protocolos.

                  La aplicación del AfCFTA

                  En principio, la aplicación del comercio en virtud de un acuerdo comercial sólo puede comenzar una vez que se haya aclarado definitivamente el marco jurídico. Sin embargo, los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de l’UA acordaron en diciembre de 2020 que el comercio puede comenzar para los bienes cuyas negociaciones hayan finalizado. En virtud de este “acuerdo transitorio”, tras un aplazamiento relacionado con la pandemia, el primer acuerdo comercial AfCFTA de Ghana a Sudáfrica tuvo lugar el 4 de enero de 2021.

                  Elementos constitutivos del AfCFTA

                  Los 55 miembros de l’UA participaron en las negociaciones de la AfCFTA. De ellos, 47 pertenecen al menos a una – y algunos a más de una – Comunidades Económicas Regionales (Regional Economic Communities – RECs) reconocidas, que, según el preámbulo del acuerdo AfCFTA, deben seguir siendo los bloques de construcción del acuerdo comercial. Por tanto, fueron ellas las que actuaron como portavoces de sus respectivos miembros en las negociaciones del AfCFTA. El AfCFTA prevé que las RECs conserven sus instrumentos jurídicos, instituciones y mecanismos de resolución de conflictos.

                  Dentro de l’UA, hay ocho REC reconocidas, que se solapan en algunos países, y que son acuerdos comerciales preferenciales (Free Trade Agreements – FTAs) o uniones aduaneras.

                  En el marco del AfCFTA, las RECs tienen diversas responsabilidades. Se trata, en particular, de:

                  • coordinar las posiciones negociadoras y asistir a los Estados miembros en la aplicación del acuerdo;
                  • mediación orientada a la búsqueda de soluciones en caso de desacuerdo entre los Estados miembros;
                  • apoyar a los Estados miembros en la armonización de aranceles y otras normativas de protección fronteriza;
                  • promover el uso del procedimiento de notificación del AfCFTA para reducir las barreras no arancelarias.

                  Perspectivas de la AfCFTA

                  El AfCFTA tiene el potencial de facilitar la integración de África en la economía mundial y crea la posibilidad real de un reajuste de los modelos de integración y cooperación internacionales.

                  Un acuerdo comercial por sí solo no es garantía de éxito económico. Para que el acuerdo logre el avance previsto, los Estados miembros deben tener la voluntad política de aplicar las nuevas normas de forma coherente y crear la capacidad necesaria para ello. En particular, la eliminación a corto plazo de las barreras comerciales y la creación de una infraestructura física y digital sostenible serán probablemente cruciales.

                  Si está interesado en el AfCFTA, puede leer una versión ampliada de este artículo aquí.

                  Legalmondo Africa Desk

                  Ayudamos a las empresas a invertir y hacer negocios en África con nuestros expertos en Argelia, Túnez, Marruecos, Egipto, Ghana, Sudán, Libia, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Camerún y Malawi.

                  También podemos ayudar a entidades extranjeras en países africanos en los que no estamos presentes directamente con una oficina a través de nuestra red de socios locales.

                  Cómo funciona

                  • Concertamos una reunión (en persona o en línea) con uno de nuestros expertos para entender las necesidades del cliente.
                  • Una vez que empezamos a trabajar juntos, atendemos al cliente con un abogado que se encarga de todas sus necesidades legales (casos individuales, o asistencia jurídica continua).

                  Póngase en contacto para saber más.

                  Summary

                  Political, environmental or health crises (like the Covid-19 outbreak and the attack of Ukraine by the Russian army) can cause an increase in the price of raw materials and components and generalized inflation. Both suppliers and distributors find themselves faced with problems related to the often sudden and very substantial increase in the price of their own supplies. French law lays down specific rules in that regard.

                  Two main situations can be distinguished: where the parties have just established a simple flow of orders and where the parties have concluded a framework agreement fixing firm prices for a fixed term.

                  Price increase in a business relationship

                  The situation is as follows: the parties have not concluded a framework agreement, each sales contract concluded (each order) is governed by the General T&Cs of the supplier; the latter has not undertaken to maintain the prices for a minimum period and applies the prices of the current tariff.

                  In principle, the supplier can modify its prices at any time by sending a new tariff. However, it must give written and reasonable notice in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 442-1.II of the Commercial Code, before the price increase comes into effect. Failure to respect sufficient notice, it could be accused of a sudden «partial» termination of commercial relations (and subject to damages).

                  A sudden termination following a price increase would be characterized when the following conditions are met:

                  • the commercial relationship must be established: broader concept than the simple contract, taking into account the duration but also the importance and the regularity of the exchanges between the parties;
                  • the price increase must be assimilated to a rupture: it is mainly the size of the price increase (+1%, 10% or 25%?) that will lead a judge to determine whether the increase constitutes a «partial» termination (in the event of a substantial modification of the relationship which is nevertheless maintained) or a total termination (if the increase is such that it involves a termination of the relationship) or if it does not constitute a termination (if the increase is minimal);
                  • the notice granted is insufficient by comparing the duration of the notice actually granted with that of the notice in accordance with Article L. 442-1.II, taking into account in particular the duration of the commercial relationship and the possible dependence of the victim of the termination with respect to the other party.

                  Article L. 442-1.II must be respected as soon as French law applies to the relation. In international business relations, to know how to deal with Article L.442-1.II and conflicts of laws and jurisdiction of competent courts, please see our previous article published on Legalmondo blog.

                  Price increase in a framework contract

                  If the parties have concluded a framework contract (such as supply, manufacturing, …) for several years and the supplier has committed to fixed prices, how, in this case, can it change these prices?

                  In addition to any indexation clause or renegotiation (hardship) clause which would be stipulated in the contract (and besides specific legal provisions applicable to special agreements as to their nature or economic sector), the supplier may seek to avail himself of the legal mechanism of «unforeseeability» provided for by article 1195 of the civil code.

                  Three prerequisites must be cumulatively met:

                  • an unforeseeable change in circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the contract (i.e.: the parties could not reasonably anticipate this upheaval);
                  • a performance of the contract that has become excessively onerous (i.e.: beyond the simple difficulty, the upheaval must cause a disproportionate imbalance);
                  • the absence of acceptance of these risks by the debtor of the obligation when concluding the contract.

                  The implementation of this mechanism must stick to the following steps:

                  • first, the party in difficulty must request the renegotiation of the contract from its co-contracting party;
                  • then, in the event of failure of the negotiation or refusal to negotiate by the other party, the parties can (i) agree together on the termination of the contract, on the date and under the conditions that they determine, or (ii) ask together the competent judge to adapt it;
                  • finally, in the absence of agreement between the parties on one of the two aforementioned options, within a reasonable time, the judge, seized by one of the parties, may revise the contract or terminate it, on the date and under the conditions that he will set.

                  The party wishing to implement this legal mechanism must also anticipate the following points:

                  • article 1195 of the Civil Code only applies to contracts concluded on or after October 1, 2016 (or renewed after this date). Judges do not have the power to adapt or rebalance contracts concluded before this date;
                  • this provision is not of public order. Therefore, the parties can exclude it or modify its conditions of application and/or implementation (the most common being the framework of the powers of the judge);
                  • during the renegotiation, the supplier must continue to sell at the initial price because, unlike force majeure, unforeseen circumstances do not lead to the suspension of compliance with the obligations.

                  Key takeaways:

                  • analyse carefully the framework of the commercial relationship before deciding to notify a price increase, in order to identify whether the prices are firm for a minimum period and the contractual levers for renegotiation;
                  • correctly anticipate the length of notice that must be given to the partner before the entry into force of the new pricing conditions, depending on the length of the relationship and the degree of dependence;
                  • document the causes of the price increase;
                  • check if and how the legal mechanism of unforeseeability has been amended or excluded by the framework contract or the General T&Cs;
                  • consider alternatives strategies, possibly based on stopping production/delivery justified by a force majeure event or on the significant imbalance of the contractual provisions.

                  Summary

                  By means of Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021, Italy implemented Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The Italian legislator introduced stricter rules than those provided for in the directive. Moreover, it has provided for some mandatory contractual requirements, within the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, but more restrictive than those of the Regulation. The new provisions shall apply irrespective of the law applicable to the contract and the country of the buyer, hence they concern cross-border relationships as well. They significantly impact contractual relationships related to the chain of fresh and processed food products, including wine, and certain non-food agricultural products, and require companies in the concerned sectors to review their contracts and business practices with respect to their relationships with customers and suppliers.

                  The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022.

                  Introduction

                  With Directive (EU) 2019/633, the EU legislator introduced a detailed set of unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, in order to tackle unbalanced trading practices imposed by strong contractual parties. The directive has been transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 198 of November 8th, 2021 (it came into force on December 15th, 2021), which introduced a long list of provisions qualified as unfair trading practices in the context of business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. The list of unfair practices is broader than the one provided for in the EU directive.

                  The transposition of the directive was also the opportunity to introduce some mandatory requirements to contracts for the supply of goods falling within the scope of the decree. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those provided for in Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019.

                  Scope of application

                  The legislation applies to commercial relationships between buyers (including the public administration) and suppliers of agricultural and food products and in particular to B2B contracts having as object the transfer of such products.

                  It does not apply to agreements in which a consumer is party, to transfers with simultaneous payment and delivery of the goods and transfers of products to cooperatives or producer organisations within the meaning of Legislative Decree 102/2005.

                  It applies, inter alia, to sale, supply and distribution agreements.

                  Agricultural and food products means the goods listed in Annex I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as those not listed in that Annex but processed for use as food using listed products. This includes all products of the agri-food chain, fresh and processed, including wine, as well as certain agricultural products outside the food chain, including animal feed not intended for human consumption and floricultural products.

                  The rules apply to sales made by suppliers based in Italy, whilst the country where the buyer is based is not relevant. It applies irrespective of the law applicable to the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the new rules also apply in case of international contractual relationships subject to the law of another country.

                  In transposing the directive, the Italian legislator decided not to take into consideration the «size of the parties»: while the directive provides for turnover thresholds and applies to contractual relations in which the buyer has a turnover equal to or greater than the supplier, the Italian rules apply irrespective of the turnover of the parties.

                  Contractual requirements

                  Article 3 of the decree introduced some mandatory requirements for contracts for the supply or transfer of agricultural and food products. These requirements, adopted in the framework of Article 168 of Regulation (EC) 1308/2013, replaced and extended those established by Article 62 of Decree-Law 1/2012 and Article 10-quater of Decree-Law 27/2019 (which had been repealed).

                  Contracts must comply with the principles of transparency, fairness, proportionality and mutual consideration of performance.

                  Contracts must be in writing. Equivalent forms (transport documents, invoices and purchase orders) are only allowed if a framework agreement containing the essential terms of future supply agreements has been entered into between supplier and buyer.

                  Of great impact is the requirement for contracts to have a duration of at least 12 months (contracts with a shorter duration are automatically extended to the minimum duration). The legislator requires companies in the supply chain (with some exceptions) to operate not with individual purchases but with continuous supply agreements, which shall indicate the quantity and characteristics of the products, the price, the delivery and payment method.

                  A considerable operational change is required due to the need to plan and contract quantities and prices of supplies. As far as the price is concerned, it no longer seems possible to agree on it from time to time during the relationship on the basis of orders or new price lists from the supplier. The price may be fixed or determinable according to the criteria laid down in the contract. Therefore, companies not intending to operate at a fixed price will have to draft contractual clauses containing the criteria for determining the price (e.g. linking it to stock exchange quotations, fluctuations in raw material or energy prices).

                  The minimum duration of at least 12 months may be waived. However, the derogation shall be justified, either by the seasonality of the products or other reasons (that are not specified in the decree). Other reasons could include the need for the buyer to meet an unforeseen increase in demand, or the need to replace a lost supply.

                  The provisions described above may also be derogated from by framework agreements concluded by the most representative business organisations.

                  Prohibited unfair trading practices and specific derogations

                  The decree provides for several cases qualified as unfair trading practices, some of which are additional to those provided for in the directive.

                  Article 4 contains two categories of prohibited practices, which transpose those of the directive.

                  The first concerns practices which are always prohibited, including, first of all, payment of the price after 30 days for perishable products and after 60 days for non-perishable products. This category also includes the cancellation of orders for perishable goods at short notice; unilateral amendments to certain contractual terms; requests for payments not related to the sale; contractual clauses obliging the supplier to bear the cost of deterioration or loss of the goods after delivery; refusal by the buyer to confirm the contractual terms in writing; the acquisition, use and disclosure of the supplier’s trade secrets; the threat of commercial retaliation by the buyer against the supplier who intends to exercise contractual rights; and the claim by the buyer for the costs incurred in examining customer complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products.

                  The second category relates to practices which are prohibited unless provided for in a written agreement between the parties: these include the return of unsold products without payment for them or for their disposal; requests to the supplier for payments for stoking, displaying or listing the products or making them available on the market; requests to the supplier to bear the costs of discounts, advertising, marketing and personnel of the buyer to fitting-out premises used for the sale of the products.

                  Article 5 provides for further practices always prohibited, in addition to those of the directive, such as the use of double-drop tenders and auctions (“gare ed aste a doppio ribasso”); the imposition of contractual conditions that are excessively burdensome for the supplier; the omission from the contract of the terms and conditions set out in Article 168(4) of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (among which price, quantity, quality, duration of the agreement); the direct or indirect imposition of contractual conditions that are unjustifiably burdensome for one of the parties; the application of different conditions for equivalent services; the imposition of ancillary services or services not related to the sale of the products; the exclusion of default interest to the detriment of the creditor or of the costs of debt collection; clauses imposing on the supplier a minimum time limit after delivery in order to be able to issue the invoice; the imposition of the unjustified transfer of economic risk on one of the parties; the imposition of an excessively short expiry date by the supplier of products, the maintenance of a certain assortment of products, the inclusion of new products in the assortment and privileged positions of certain products on the buyer’s premises.

                  A specific discipline is provided for sales below cost: Article 7 establishes that, as regards fresh and perishable products, this practice is allowed only in case of unsold products at risk of perishing or in case of commercial operations planned and agreed with the supplier in writing, while in the event of violation of this provision the price established by the parties is replaced by law.

                  Sanctioning system and supervisory authorities

                  The provisions introduced by the decree, as regards both contractual requirements and unfair trading practices, are backed up by a comprehensive system of sanctions.

                  Contractual clauses or agreements contrary to mandatory contractual requirements, those that constitute unfair trading practices and those contrary to the regulation of sales below cost are null and void.

                  The decree provides for specific financial penalties (one for each case) calculated between a fixed minimum (which, depending on the case, may be from 1,000 to 30,000 euros) and a variable maximum (between 3 and 5%) linked to the turnover of the offender; there are also certain cases in which the penalty is further increased.

                  In any event, without prejudice to claims for damages.

                  Supervision of compliance with the provisions of the decree is entrusted to the Central Inspectorate for the Protection of Quality and Fraud Repression of Agri-Food Products (ICQRF), which may conduct investigations, carry out unannounced on-site inspections, ascertain violations, require the offender to put an end to the prohibited practices and initiate proceedings for the imposition of administrative fines, without prejudice to the powers of the Competition and Market Authority (AGCM).

                  Recommended activities

                  The provisions introduced by the decree also apply to existing contracts, which shall be made compliant by 15 June 2022. Therefore:

                  • the companies involved, both Italian and foreign, should carry out a review of their business practices, current contracts and general terms and conditions of supply and purchase, and then identify any gaps with respect to the new provisions and adopt the relevant corrective measures.
                  • As the new legislation applies irrespective of the applicable law and is EU-derived, it will be important for companies doing business abroad to understand how the EU directive has been implemented in the countries where they operate and verify the compliance of contracts with these rules as well.

                  In an important and very reasoned judgment delivered by the Court of Cassation of France on September 30, 2020, relating to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in international consumer contracts, the Supreme Court judged that these clauses must be considered unfair and cannot be opposed to consumers.  

                  The Supreme Court traditionally insisted on the priority given to the arbitrator to decide on his own jurisdiction, laid down in Article 1448 of the Code of Civil Procedure (principle known as «competence-competence», Jaguar, Civ. 1re, May 21, 1997, nos. 95-11.429 and 95-11.427). 

                  The ECJ expressed its hostility towards such clauses when they are opposed to consumers. In Mostaza Claro (C-168/05), it referred to the internal laws of member states, while considering that the procedural modalities offered by states should not “make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by public order to consumers (“Directive 93/13, concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitration proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment”).  

                  It therefore referred to the national judge the right to implement its legislation on unfair terms, and therefore to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the arbitration clause should be considered unfair. This is what the Court of Cassation decided, ruling out the case-by-case method, and considering that in any event such a clause must be excluded in relations with consumers.  

                  The Court of Cassation adopted the same solution in international employment contracts, where it traditionally considers that arbitration clauses contained in international employment contracts are enforceable against employee (Soc. 16 Feb. 1999, n ° 96-40.643). 

                  The Supreme Court, although traditionally very favourable to arbitration, gradually builds up a set of specific exceptions to ensure the protection of the «weak» party.

                  Resumen

                  Al terminar los contratos de agencia y distribución la principal fuente de conflicto es la reclamación de una indemnización por clientela. La Ley española del Contrato de Agencia —al igual que la Directiva sobre Agentes comerciales— prevé que cuando se extingue el contrato, el agente tendrá derecho, si se dan determinadas condiciones, a una indemnización. En España, por analogía (aunque con salvedades y matices), esta indemnización se puede reclamar también en contratos de distribución.  

                  Para que se reconozca esta indemnización es necesario que el agente (o el distribuidor: para más detalles, consulte este artículo) hayan aportado nuevos clientes o incrementado sensiblemente las operaciones con los preexistentes, que su actividad pueda seguir produciendo ventajas sustanciales al empresario y que resulte equitativo. Todo esto condiciona que se reconozca el derecho a la indemnización y su cuantía. 

                  Estas expresiones (nuevos clientes, incremento sensible, pueda producir, ventajas sustanciales, equitativo) son difíciles de definir a priori, por lo que, para tener éxito, es recomendable que las reclamaciones ante los tribunales se apoyen, caso por caso, en informes de expertos, supervisados por un abogado.  

                  Hay, al menos en España, una tendencia a reclamar directamente el máximo que prevé la norma (un año de remuneraciones calculada como media de los cinco anteriores) sin entrar en más análisis. Pero si se hace así, se corre el riesgo de que un juez rechace la petición por considerarla sin fundamento. Por lo tanto, y a partir de nuestra experiencia, me parece conveniente orientar sobre cómo fundamentar mejor la reclamación de esta indemnización y su cuantía.  

                  Conviene que el agente/distribuidor, el perito y el abogado tengan en cuenta lo siguiente: 

                  Comprobar cuál ha sido la aportación del agente 

                  Si existían clientes antes de iniciarse el contrato y qué volumen de ventas se hacía con ellos. Para reconocer esta indemnización es necesario que el agente haya incrementado el número de clientes  o  las operaciones con los preexistentes. 

                  Analizar la importancia de esos clientes a la hora de seguir aportando ventajas al empresario

                  Su recurrencia, su fidelidad (al empresario y no al agente), la tasa de migración (cuántos seguirán con el empresario al concluir el contrato o con el agente). En efecto, Será difícil hablar de “clientela” si solo ha habido clientes esporádicos, ocasionales, no recurrentes (o poco) o que seguirán permaneciendo fieles al agente y no al empresario. 

                  Cómo se queda el agente al terminar el contrato 

                  ¿Podrá hacer competencia al empresario o hay restricciones en el contrato? Si el agente puede seguir atendiendo a los mismos clientes, pero para un empresario diferente, la indemnización se podría discutir bastante. 

                  ¿Es equitativa la indemnización?  

                  Examinar cómo ha actuado el agente en el pasado: si ha cumplido sus obligaciones, su trabajo a la hora de introducir los productos o abrir el mercado, la posible evolución de tales productos o servicios en el futuro, etc. 

                  ¿Perderá comisiones el agente?  

                  Aquí hay que examinar si tenía exclusividad; su mayor o menor facilidad para hacerse con un nuevo contrato (p.ej. por edad, crisis económica, el tipo de productos, etc.) o con una nueva fuente de ingresos, la evolución de las ventas durante los últimos años (las consideradas para la indemnización), etc. 

                  Es necesario también calcular el máximo legal que no podrá superarse 

                  La media anual de lo percibido durante el período del contrato (o de 5 años si duró más). Esto incluirá no solo las comisiones, sino cualquier cantidad fija, bonificaciones, premios, etc. o los márgenes en caso los distribuidores. 

                  Y, por último, conviene incluir en el informe del experto todos los documentos analizados 

                   Si no se hace así y solo se mencionan, podría dar lugar a que no se tengan en cuenta por un juez.

                  Consulte la Guía Práctica sobre Contratos de Agencia Internacional 

                  Para leer más sobre las principales características de un contrato de agencia en España, consulte nuestra Guía. 

                  Mercedes Clavell

                  Áreas de práctica

                  • Franquicia
                  • Inmigración
                  • Comercio internacional
                  • Fusiones y adquisiciones
                  • Derecho Inmobiliario
                  Contáctanos Mercedes

                  La fluttuazione dei prezzi delle materie prime nei contratti internazionali

                  Vendere il vino e i distillati italiani in Cina

                  Distribution Agreements in Mexico

                  Contacta con Mercedes





                    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.