Commercial distribution contracts – Six key questions to consider

30 Novembre 2017

  • Spagna
  • Agenzia
  • Contratti
  • Distribuzione
  • Commercio internazionale

Dopo una lunga attesa dei fornitori di prodotti di marca, dei distributori al dettaglio di negozi fisici, dei rivenditori via internet, incluse piattaforme come Amazon, eBay, Zalando, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea (CGUE) ha appena deciso (6 dicembre 2017) – nella decisione già ribattezzata di “San Niccolò” – che i fornitori di beni di lusso possono legittimamente proibire vendite tramite piattaforme di terze parti.

In un precedente post di Legalmondo (“the Coty Case”, in lingua inglese) avevamo analizzato la vertenza appena decisa dai giudici europei. Secondo la CGUE, tale divieto di usare piattaforme non costituisce necessariamente una restrizione illegittima della concorrenza ai sensi dell’articolo 101 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea (“TFUE”): la Corte ha confermato il fatto che i sistemi di distribuzione selettiva per beni di lusso, volti primariamente a preservare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti, possono essere ritenuti compatibili con le limitazioni comunitarie in tema di accordi verticali.

Più specificamente, la Corte ha deciso che le limitazioni alla rivendita dei beni attraverso piattaforme online sono legittime perché il diritto europeo permette la restrizione alle vendite online grazie a

“una clausola contrattuale, come quella di cui trattasi, che vieta ai distributori autorizzati di un sistema di distribuzione selettiva di prodotti di lusso finalizzato, primariamente, a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso di tali prodotti, di servirsi in maniera riconoscibile di piattaforme terze per la vendita a mezzo Internet dei prodotti interessati, qualora siano rispettate le seguenti condizioni: (i) tale clausola deve essere diretta a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti interessati, (ii) deve essere stabilita indistintamente e applicata in modo non discriminatorio e (iii) deve essere proporzionata rispetto all’obiettivo perseguito. Spetterà all’Oberlandesgericht verificare se ciò avvenga nel caso di specie.”

(cfr. la rassegna stampa della CGUE No. 132/2017 e il testo completo della decisone).

Spetta ora alla Corte d’Appello di Francoforte applicare tali requisiti al caso Coty.

La storia del caso Coty è estremamente interessante: la filiale tedesca del fornitore di profumi di lusso Coty, la Coty Germany GmbH (“Coty”) ha creato una rete di distribuzione selettiva per la quale i suoi distributori possono effettuare vendite via internet, ma è loro proibito di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti, le quali appaiano tali anche dall’esterno, come ad esempio Amazon, eBay, Zalando etc. La corte di primo grado aveva deciso che l’imposizione di tale divieto di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti costituisse un’illegittima restrizione della concorrenza. La Corte di secondo grado, invece, non aveva ravvisato una risposta altrettanto chiara e aveva chiesto alla Corte di Giustizia Europea di pronunciarsi sull’interpretazione della normativa europea antitrust e, più specificamente, dell’art. 101 TFUE e dell’art. 4 lett. b e c del regolamento generale di esenzione per categoria per gli accordi verticali o “VBER” (decisione del 19.04.2016, per dettagli, si veda il post precedente “eCommerce: restrizioni per i distributori in Germania”). Il 30 marzo 2017 ha avuto luogo l’udienza dinnanzi alla CGUE. In tale sede Coty ha difeso il proprio divieto di vendere su piattaforme terze, sostenendo che lo stesso è volto a proteggere l’immagine di lusso di marchi come Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein o Chloé. Il distributore Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, viceversa, sosteneva che piattaforme conosciute come Amazon e eBay già vendessero prodotti di marca, (ad es: L’Oréal) e di conseguenza non v’era motivo, per Coty, di proibire la rivendita tramite tali piattaforme. Inoltre, ha sostenuto Parfümerie Akzente, le piattaforme online sono importanti per le piccole e le medie imprese. Possibili indicazioni su come la Corte avrebbe potuto decidere sono apparse il 26 luglio 2017, allorché l’Avvocato Generale ha fornito le proprie conclusioni, concludendo che il divieto di usare piattaforme fosse ammissibile, purché “tale clausola contrattuale sia condizionata dalla natura del prodotto, se essa sia stabilita in modo uniforme e applicata indifferentemente e se essa non vada oltre il necessario” (paragrafo 122 delle conclusioni dell’Avvocato Generale; vedi il post precedente “Distribuzione online – Divieti di vendite su piattaforme online nella distribuzione selettiva (il caso Coty perdura)”).

Conclusioni pratiche

Il caso Coty è estremamente rilevante per la distribuzione in Europa perché più del 70% degli oggetti di lusso del mondo sono venduti qui, e molti di essi vengono venduti online. Per maggiori implicazioni sulle reti di distribuzione esistenti e future e sui rispettivi accordi, restate in contatto, continueremo ad aggiornarvi su Legalmondo!

Based on our experience in many years advising and representing companies in the commercial distribution (in Spanish jurisdiction but with foreign manufacturers or distributors), the following are the six key essential elements for manufacturers (suppliers) and retailers (distributors) when establishing a distribution relationship.

These ideas are relevant when companies intend to start their commercial relationship but they should not be neglected and verified even when there are already existing contacts.

The signature of the contract

Although it could seem obvious, the signature of a distribution agreement is less common than it might seem. It often happens that along the extended relationship, the corporate structures change and what once was signed with an entity, has not been renewed, adapted, modified or replaced when the situation has been transformed. It is very convenient to have well documented the relationship at every moment of its existence and to be sure that what has been covered legally is also enforceable y the day-to-day commercial relationship. It is advisable this work to be carried out by legal specialists closely with the commercial department of the company. Perfectly drafted clauses from a legal standpoint will be useless if overtaken or not understood by the day-to-day activity. And, of course, no contract is signed as a “mere formality” and then modified by verbal agreements or practices.

The proper choice of contract

If the signature of the distribution contract is important, the choice of the correct type is essential. Many of the conflicts that occur, especially in long-term relationships, begin with the interpretation of the type of relationship that has been signed. Even with a written text (and with an express title), the intention of the parties remains often unclear (and so the agreement). Is the “distributor” really so? Does he buy and resell or there are only sporadic supply relationships? Is there just a representative activity (ie, the distributor is actually an “agent“)? Is there a mixed relationship (sometimes represents, sometimes buys and resells)? The list could continue indefinitely. Even in many of the relationships that currently exist I am sure that the interpretation given by the Supplier and the Distributor could be different.

Monitoring of legal and business relations

If it is quite frequent not to have a clear written contract, it happens in almost all the distribution relationships than once the agreement has been signed, the day-to-day commercial activity modifies what has been agreed. Why commercial relations seem to neglect what has been written in an agreement? It is quite frequent contracts in which certain obligations for distributors are included (reporting on the market, customers, minimum purchases), but which in practice are not respected (it seems complicated, there is a good relationship between the parties, and nobody remembers what was agreed by people no longer working at the company…). However, it is also quite frequent to try to use these (real?) defaults later on when the relationship starts having problems. At that moment, parties try to hide behind these violations to terminate the contracts although these practices were, in a sort of way, accepted as a new procedure. Of course no agreement can last forever and for that reason is highly recommendable a joint and periodical monitoring between the legal adviser (preferably an independent one with the support of the general managers) and the commercial department to take into account new practices and to have a provision in the contractual documents.

Evidences about customers

In distribution contracts, evidences about customers will be essential in case of termination. Parties (mainly the supplier) are quite interested in showing evidences on who (supplier or distributor) procured the customers. Are they a result of the distributor activity or are they obtained as a consequence of the reputation of the trademark? Evidences on customers could simplify or even avoid future conflicts. The importance of the clientele and its possible future activity will be a key element to define the compensation to which the distributor will pretend to be eligible.

Evidences on purchases and sales

Another essential element and quite often forgotten is the justification of purchases to the supplier and subsequent sales by distributors. In any distribution agreement distributors acquire the products and resell them to the final customers. A future compensation to the distributor will consider the difference between the purchase prices and resale prices (the margin). It is therefore advisable to be able to establish the correspondent evidence on such information in order to better prepare a possible claim.

Damages in case of termination of contracts

Similarly, it would be convenient to justify what damages have been suffered as a result of the termination of a contract: has the distributor made investments by indication of the supplier that are still to be amortized? Has the distributor hired new employees for a line of business that have to be dismissed because of the termination of the contract (costs of compensation)? Has the distributor rented new premises signing long-term contracts due to the expectations on the agreement? Please, take into account that the Distributor is an independent trader and, as such, he assumes the risks of his activity. But to the extent he is acting on a distribution network he shall be subject to the directions, suggestions and expectations created by the supplier. These may be relevant to later determine the damages caused by the termination of the contract.

[Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.

Ignacio Alonso

Aree di attività

  • Agenzia
  • Diritto societario
  • Distribuzione
  • Franchising
Contatta Ignacio

Scrivi a Ignacio





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    Boycot of Israeli products and business –  Risk to be sued for damages

    1 Novembre 2017

    • Israele
    • Commercio internazionale
    • Contenzioso

    Dopo una lunga attesa dei fornitori di prodotti di marca, dei distributori al dettaglio di negozi fisici, dei rivenditori via internet, incluse piattaforme come Amazon, eBay, Zalando, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea (CGUE) ha appena deciso (6 dicembre 2017) – nella decisione già ribattezzata di “San Niccolò” – che i fornitori di beni di lusso possono legittimamente proibire vendite tramite piattaforme di terze parti.

    In un precedente post di Legalmondo (“the Coty Case”, in lingua inglese) avevamo analizzato la vertenza appena decisa dai giudici europei. Secondo la CGUE, tale divieto di usare piattaforme non costituisce necessariamente una restrizione illegittima della concorrenza ai sensi dell’articolo 101 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea (“TFUE”): la Corte ha confermato il fatto che i sistemi di distribuzione selettiva per beni di lusso, volti primariamente a preservare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti, possono essere ritenuti compatibili con le limitazioni comunitarie in tema di accordi verticali.

    Più specificamente, la Corte ha deciso che le limitazioni alla rivendita dei beni attraverso piattaforme online sono legittime perché il diritto europeo permette la restrizione alle vendite online grazie a

    “una clausola contrattuale, come quella di cui trattasi, che vieta ai distributori autorizzati di un sistema di distribuzione selettiva di prodotti di lusso finalizzato, primariamente, a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso di tali prodotti, di servirsi in maniera riconoscibile di piattaforme terze per la vendita a mezzo Internet dei prodotti interessati, qualora siano rispettate le seguenti condizioni: (i) tale clausola deve essere diretta a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti interessati, (ii) deve essere stabilita indistintamente e applicata in modo non discriminatorio e (iii) deve essere proporzionata rispetto all’obiettivo perseguito. Spetterà all’Oberlandesgericht verificare se ciò avvenga nel caso di specie.”

    (cfr. la rassegna stampa della CGUE No. 132/2017 e il testo completo della decisone).

    Spetta ora alla Corte d’Appello di Francoforte applicare tali requisiti al caso Coty.

    La storia del caso Coty è estremamente interessante: la filiale tedesca del fornitore di profumi di lusso Coty, la Coty Germany GmbH (“Coty”) ha creato una rete di distribuzione selettiva per la quale i suoi distributori possono effettuare vendite via internet, ma è loro proibito di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti, le quali appaiano tali anche dall’esterno, come ad esempio Amazon, eBay, Zalando etc. La corte di primo grado aveva deciso che l’imposizione di tale divieto di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti costituisse un’illegittima restrizione della concorrenza. La Corte di secondo grado, invece, non aveva ravvisato una risposta altrettanto chiara e aveva chiesto alla Corte di Giustizia Europea di pronunciarsi sull’interpretazione della normativa europea antitrust e, più specificamente, dell’art. 101 TFUE e dell’art. 4 lett. b e c del regolamento generale di esenzione per categoria per gli accordi verticali o “VBER” (decisione del 19.04.2016, per dettagli, si veda il post precedente “eCommerce: restrizioni per i distributori in Germania”). Il 30 marzo 2017 ha avuto luogo l’udienza dinnanzi alla CGUE. In tale sede Coty ha difeso il proprio divieto di vendere su piattaforme terze, sostenendo che lo stesso è volto a proteggere l’immagine di lusso di marchi come Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein o Chloé. Il distributore Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, viceversa, sosteneva che piattaforme conosciute come Amazon e eBay già vendessero prodotti di marca, (ad es: L’Oréal) e di conseguenza non v’era motivo, per Coty, di proibire la rivendita tramite tali piattaforme. Inoltre, ha sostenuto Parfümerie Akzente, le piattaforme online sono importanti per le piccole e le medie imprese. Possibili indicazioni su come la Corte avrebbe potuto decidere sono apparse il 26 luglio 2017, allorché l’Avvocato Generale ha fornito le proprie conclusioni, concludendo che il divieto di usare piattaforme fosse ammissibile, purché “tale clausola contrattuale sia condizionata dalla natura del prodotto, se essa sia stabilita in modo uniforme e applicata indifferentemente e se essa non vada oltre il necessario” (paragrafo 122 delle conclusioni dell’Avvocato Generale; vedi il post precedente “Distribuzione online – Divieti di vendite su piattaforme online nella distribuzione selettiva (il caso Coty perdura)”).

    Conclusioni pratiche

    Il caso Coty è estremamente rilevante per la distribuzione in Europa perché più del 70% degli oggetti di lusso del mondo sono venduti qui, e molti di essi vengono venduti online. Per maggiori implicazioni sulle reti di distribuzione esistenti e future e sui rispettivi accordi, restate in contatto, continueremo ad aggiornarvi su Legalmondo!

    Based on our experience in many years advising and representing companies in the commercial distribution (in Spanish jurisdiction but with foreign manufacturers or distributors), the following are the six key essential elements for manufacturers (suppliers) and retailers (distributors) when establishing a distribution relationship.

    These ideas are relevant when companies intend to start their commercial relationship but they should not be neglected and verified even when there are already existing contacts.

    The signature of the contract

    Although it could seem obvious, the signature of a distribution agreement is less common than it might seem. It often happens that along the extended relationship, the corporate structures change and what once was signed with an entity, has not been renewed, adapted, modified or replaced when the situation has been transformed. It is very convenient to have well documented the relationship at every moment of its existence and to be sure that what has been covered legally is also enforceable y the day-to-day commercial relationship. It is advisable this work to be carried out by legal specialists closely with the commercial department of the company. Perfectly drafted clauses from a legal standpoint will be useless if overtaken or not understood by the day-to-day activity. And, of course, no contract is signed as a “mere formality” and then modified by verbal agreements or practices.

    The proper choice of contract

    If the signature of the distribution contract is important, the choice of the correct type is essential. Many of the conflicts that occur, especially in long-term relationships, begin with the interpretation of the type of relationship that has been signed. Even with a written text (and with an express title), the intention of the parties remains often unclear (and so the agreement). Is the “distributor” really so? Does he buy and resell or there are only sporadic supply relationships? Is there just a representative activity (ie, the distributor is actually an “agent“)? Is there a mixed relationship (sometimes represents, sometimes buys and resells)? The list could continue indefinitely. Even in many of the relationships that currently exist I am sure that the interpretation given by the Supplier and the Distributor could be different.

    Monitoring of legal and business relations

    If it is quite frequent not to have a clear written contract, it happens in almost all the distribution relationships than once the agreement has been signed, the day-to-day commercial activity modifies what has been agreed. Why commercial relations seem to neglect what has been written in an agreement? It is quite frequent contracts in which certain obligations for distributors are included (reporting on the market, customers, minimum purchases), but which in practice are not respected (it seems complicated, there is a good relationship between the parties, and nobody remembers what was agreed by people no longer working at the company…). However, it is also quite frequent to try to use these (real?) defaults later on when the relationship starts having problems. At that moment, parties try to hide behind these violations to terminate the contracts although these practices were, in a sort of way, accepted as a new procedure. Of course no agreement can last forever and for that reason is highly recommendable a joint and periodical monitoring between the legal adviser (preferably an independent one with the support of the general managers) and the commercial department to take into account new practices and to have a provision in the contractual documents.

    Evidences about customers

    In distribution contracts, evidences about customers will be essential in case of termination. Parties (mainly the supplier) are quite interested in showing evidences on who (supplier or distributor) procured the customers. Are they a result of the distributor activity or are they obtained as a consequence of the reputation of the trademark? Evidences on customers could simplify or even avoid future conflicts. The importance of the clientele and its possible future activity will be a key element to define the compensation to which the distributor will pretend to be eligible.

    Evidences on purchases and sales

    Another essential element and quite often forgotten is the justification of purchases to the supplier and subsequent sales by distributors. In any distribution agreement distributors acquire the products and resell them to the final customers. A future compensation to the distributor will consider the difference between the purchase prices and resale prices (the margin). It is therefore advisable to be able to establish the correspondent evidence on such information in order to better prepare a possible claim.

    Damages in case of termination of contracts

    Similarly, it would be convenient to justify what damages have been suffered as a result of the termination of a contract: has the distributor made investments by indication of the supplier that are still to be amortized? Has the distributor hired new employees for a line of business that have to be dismissed because of the termination of the contract (costs of compensation)? Has the distributor rented new premises signing long-term contracts due to the expectations on the agreement? Please, take into account that the Distributor is an independent trader and, as such, he assumes the risks of his activity. But to the extent he is acting on a distribution network he shall be subject to the directions, suggestions and expectations created by the supplier. These may be relevant to later determine the damages caused by the termination of the contract.

    [Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

    It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

    In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

    This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

    Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

    Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

    Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

    The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

    As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

    The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

    It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

    To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

    Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

    Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

    Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

    In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

    È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

    Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

    Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

    Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

    Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

    Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

    Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

    Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

    La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

    The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

    The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

    In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

    First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

    Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

    The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

    The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.

    Benjamin Leventhal

    Aree di attività

    • Arbitrato
    • Diritto societario
    • Contenzioso
    Contatta Benjamin

    Scrivi a Benjamin





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

      Cina – Negoziati contrattuali

      26 Luglio 2016

      • Cina
      • Distribuzione
      • Commercio internazionale

      Dopo una lunga attesa dei fornitori di prodotti di marca, dei distributori al dettaglio di negozi fisici, dei rivenditori via internet, incluse piattaforme come Amazon, eBay, Zalando, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea (CGUE) ha appena deciso (6 dicembre 2017) – nella decisione già ribattezzata di “San Niccolò” – che i fornitori di beni di lusso possono legittimamente proibire vendite tramite piattaforme di terze parti.

      In un precedente post di Legalmondo (“the Coty Case”, in lingua inglese) avevamo analizzato la vertenza appena decisa dai giudici europei. Secondo la CGUE, tale divieto di usare piattaforme non costituisce necessariamente una restrizione illegittima della concorrenza ai sensi dell’articolo 101 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea (“TFUE”): la Corte ha confermato il fatto che i sistemi di distribuzione selettiva per beni di lusso, volti primariamente a preservare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti, possono essere ritenuti compatibili con le limitazioni comunitarie in tema di accordi verticali.

      Più specificamente, la Corte ha deciso che le limitazioni alla rivendita dei beni attraverso piattaforme online sono legittime perché il diritto europeo permette la restrizione alle vendite online grazie a

      “una clausola contrattuale, come quella di cui trattasi, che vieta ai distributori autorizzati di un sistema di distribuzione selettiva di prodotti di lusso finalizzato, primariamente, a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso di tali prodotti, di servirsi in maniera riconoscibile di piattaforme terze per la vendita a mezzo Internet dei prodotti interessati, qualora siano rispettate le seguenti condizioni: (i) tale clausola deve essere diretta a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti interessati, (ii) deve essere stabilita indistintamente e applicata in modo non discriminatorio e (iii) deve essere proporzionata rispetto all’obiettivo perseguito. Spetterà all’Oberlandesgericht verificare se ciò avvenga nel caso di specie.”

      (cfr. la rassegna stampa della CGUE No. 132/2017 e il testo completo della decisone).

      Spetta ora alla Corte d’Appello di Francoforte applicare tali requisiti al caso Coty.

      La storia del caso Coty è estremamente interessante: la filiale tedesca del fornitore di profumi di lusso Coty, la Coty Germany GmbH (“Coty”) ha creato una rete di distribuzione selettiva per la quale i suoi distributori possono effettuare vendite via internet, ma è loro proibito di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti, le quali appaiano tali anche dall’esterno, come ad esempio Amazon, eBay, Zalando etc. La corte di primo grado aveva deciso che l’imposizione di tale divieto di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti costituisse un’illegittima restrizione della concorrenza. La Corte di secondo grado, invece, non aveva ravvisato una risposta altrettanto chiara e aveva chiesto alla Corte di Giustizia Europea di pronunciarsi sull’interpretazione della normativa europea antitrust e, più specificamente, dell’art. 101 TFUE e dell’art. 4 lett. b e c del regolamento generale di esenzione per categoria per gli accordi verticali o “VBER” (decisione del 19.04.2016, per dettagli, si veda il post precedente “eCommerce: restrizioni per i distributori in Germania”). Il 30 marzo 2017 ha avuto luogo l’udienza dinnanzi alla CGUE. In tale sede Coty ha difeso il proprio divieto di vendere su piattaforme terze, sostenendo che lo stesso è volto a proteggere l’immagine di lusso di marchi come Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein o Chloé. Il distributore Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, viceversa, sosteneva che piattaforme conosciute come Amazon e eBay già vendessero prodotti di marca, (ad es: L’Oréal) e di conseguenza non v’era motivo, per Coty, di proibire la rivendita tramite tali piattaforme. Inoltre, ha sostenuto Parfümerie Akzente, le piattaforme online sono importanti per le piccole e le medie imprese. Possibili indicazioni su come la Corte avrebbe potuto decidere sono apparse il 26 luglio 2017, allorché l’Avvocato Generale ha fornito le proprie conclusioni, concludendo che il divieto di usare piattaforme fosse ammissibile, purché “tale clausola contrattuale sia condizionata dalla natura del prodotto, se essa sia stabilita in modo uniforme e applicata indifferentemente e se essa non vada oltre il necessario” (paragrafo 122 delle conclusioni dell’Avvocato Generale; vedi il post precedente “Distribuzione online – Divieti di vendite su piattaforme online nella distribuzione selettiva (il caso Coty perdura)”).

      Conclusioni pratiche

      Il caso Coty è estremamente rilevante per la distribuzione in Europa perché più del 70% degli oggetti di lusso del mondo sono venduti qui, e molti di essi vengono venduti online. Per maggiori implicazioni sulle reti di distribuzione esistenti e future e sui rispettivi accordi, restate in contatto, continueremo ad aggiornarvi su Legalmondo!

      Based on our experience in many years advising and representing companies in the commercial distribution (in Spanish jurisdiction but with foreign manufacturers or distributors), the following are the six key essential elements for manufacturers (suppliers) and retailers (distributors) when establishing a distribution relationship.

      These ideas are relevant when companies intend to start their commercial relationship but they should not be neglected and verified even when there are already existing contacts.

      The signature of the contract

      Although it could seem obvious, the signature of a distribution agreement is less common than it might seem. It often happens that along the extended relationship, the corporate structures change and what once was signed with an entity, has not been renewed, adapted, modified or replaced when the situation has been transformed. It is very convenient to have well documented the relationship at every moment of its existence and to be sure that what has been covered legally is also enforceable y the day-to-day commercial relationship. It is advisable this work to be carried out by legal specialists closely with the commercial department of the company. Perfectly drafted clauses from a legal standpoint will be useless if overtaken or not understood by the day-to-day activity. And, of course, no contract is signed as a “mere formality” and then modified by verbal agreements or practices.

      The proper choice of contract

      If the signature of the distribution contract is important, the choice of the correct type is essential. Many of the conflicts that occur, especially in long-term relationships, begin with the interpretation of the type of relationship that has been signed. Even with a written text (and with an express title), the intention of the parties remains often unclear (and so the agreement). Is the “distributor” really so? Does he buy and resell or there are only sporadic supply relationships? Is there just a representative activity (ie, the distributor is actually an “agent“)? Is there a mixed relationship (sometimes represents, sometimes buys and resells)? The list could continue indefinitely. Even in many of the relationships that currently exist I am sure that the interpretation given by the Supplier and the Distributor could be different.

      Monitoring of legal and business relations

      If it is quite frequent not to have a clear written contract, it happens in almost all the distribution relationships than once the agreement has been signed, the day-to-day commercial activity modifies what has been agreed. Why commercial relations seem to neglect what has been written in an agreement? It is quite frequent contracts in which certain obligations for distributors are included (reporting on the market, customers, minimum purchases), but which in practice are not respected (it seems complicated, there is a good relationship between the parties, and nobody remembers what was agreed by people no longer working at the company…). However, it is also quite frequent to try to use these (real?) defaults later on when the relationship starts having problems. At that moment, parties try to hide behind these violations to terminate the contracts although these practices were, in a sort of way, accepted as a new procedure. Of course no agreement can last forever and for that reason is highly recommendable a joint and periodical monitoring between the legal adviser (preferably an independent one with the support of the general managers) and the commercial department to take into account new practices and to have a provision in the contractual documents.

      Evidences about customers

      In distribution contracts, evidences about customers will be essential in case of termination. Parties (mainly the supplier) are quite interested in showing evidences on who (supplier or distributor) procured the customers. Are they a result of the distributor activity or are they obtained as a consequence of the reputation of the trademark? Evidences on customers could simplify or even avoid future conflicts. The importance of the clientele and its possible future activity will be a key element to define the compensation to which the distributor will pretend to be eligible.

      Evidences on purchases and sales

      Another essential element and quite often forgotten is the justification of purchases to the supplier and subsequent sales by distributors. In any distribution agreement distributors acquire the products and resell them to the final customers. A future compensation to the distributor will consider the difference between the purchase prices and resale prices (the margin). It is therefore advisable to be able to establish the correspondent evidence on such information in order to better prepare a possible claim.

      Damages in case of termination of contracts

      Similarly, it would be convenient to justify what damages have been suffered as a result of the termination of a contract: has the distributor made investments by indication of the supplier that are still to be amortized? Has the distributor hired new employees for a line of business that have to be dismissed because of the termination of the contract (costs of compensation)? Has the distributor rented new premises signing long-term contracts due to the expectations on the agreement? Please, take into account that the Distributor is an independent trader and, as such, he assumes the risks of his activity. But to the extent he is acting on a distribution network he shall be subject to the directions, suggestions and expectations created by the supplier. These may be relevant to later determine the damages caused by the termination of the contract.

      [Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

      It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

      In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

      This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

      Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

      Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

      Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

      The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

      As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

      The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

      It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

      To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

      Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

      Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

      Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

      In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

      È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

      Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

      Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

      Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

      Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

      Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

      Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

      Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

      La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

      The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

      The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

      In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

      First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

      Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

      The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

      The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.

      Roberto Luzi Crivellini

      Aree di attività

      • Arbitrato
      • Distribuzione
      • Commercio internazionale
      • Contenzioso
      • Real estate
      Contatta Roberto

      Scrivi a Roberto





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        Null contract of international sale of goods. Which Jurisdiction?

        11 Luglio 2016

        • Italia
        • Diritto internazionale
        • Contratti
        • Commercio internazionale

        Dopo una lunga attesa dei fornitori di prodotti di marca, dei distributori al dettaglio di negozi fisici, dei rivenditori via internet, incluse piattaforme come Amazon, eBay, Zalando, la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea (CGUE) ha appena deciso (6 dicembre 2017) – nella decisione già ribattezzata di “San Niccolò” – che i fornitori di beni di lusso possono legittimamente proibire vendite tramite piattaforme di terze parti.

        In un precedente post di Legalmondo (“the Coty Case”, in lingua inglese) avevamo analizzato la vertenza appena decisa dai giudici europei. Secondo la CGUE, tale divieto di usare piattaforme non costituisce necessariamente una restrizione illegittima della concorrenza ai sensi dell’articolo 101 del Trattato sul Funzionamento dell’Unione Europea (“TFUE”): la Corte ha confermato il fatto che i sistemi di distribuzione selettiva per beni di lusso, volti primariamente a preservare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti, possono essere ritenuti compatibili con le limitazioni comunitarie in tema di accordi verticali.

        Più specificamente, la Corte ha deciso che le limitazioni alla rivendita dei beni attraverso piattaforme online sono legittime perché il diritto europeo permette la restrizione alle vendite online grazie a

        “una clausola contrattuale, come quella di cui trattasi, che vieta ai distributori autorizzati di un sistema di distribuzione selettiva di prodotti di lusso finalizzato, primariamente, a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso di tali prodotti, di servirsi in maniera riconoscibile di piattaforme terze per la vendita a mezzo Internet dei prodotti interessati, qualora siano rispettate le seguenti condizioni: (i) tale clausola deve essere diretta a salvaguardare l’immagine di lusso dei prodotti interessati, (ii) deve essere stabilita indistintamente e applicata in modo non discriminatorio e (iii) deve essere proporzionata rispetto all’obiettivo perseguito. Spetterà all’Oberlandesgericht verificare se ciò avvenga nel caso di specie.”

        (cfr. la rassegna stampa della CGUE No. 132/2017 e il testo completo della decisone).

        Spetta ora alla Corte d’Appello di Francoforte applicare tali requisiti al caso Coty.

        La storia del caso Coty è estremamente interessante: la filiale tedesca del fornitore di profumi di lusso Coty, la Coty Germany GmbH (“Coty”) ha creato una rete di distribuzione selettiva per la quale i suoi distributori possono effettuare vendite via internet, ma è loro proibito di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti, le quali appaiano tali anche dall’esterno, come ad esempio Amazon, eBay, Zalando etc. La corte di primo grado aveva deciso che l’imposizione di tale divieto di vendere tramite piattaforme di terze parti costituisse un’illegittima restrizione della concorrenza. La Corte di secondo grado, invece, non aveva ravvisato una risposta altrettanto chiara e aveva chiesto alla Corte di Giustizia Europea di pronunciarsi sull’interpretazione della normativa europea antitrust e, più specificamente, dell’art. 101 TFUE e dell’art. 4 lett. b e c del regolamento generale di esenzione per categoria per gli accordi verticali o “VBER” (decisione del 19.04.2016, per dettagli, si veda il post precedente “eCommerce: restrizioni per i distributori in Germania”). Il 30 marzo 2017 ha avuto luogo l’udienza dinnanzi alla CGUE. In tale sede Coty ha difeso il proprio divieto di vendere su piattaforme terze, sostenendo che lo stesso è volto a proteggere l’immagine di lusso di marchi come Marc Jacobs, Calvin Klein o Chloé. Il distributore Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, viceversa, sosteneva che piattaforme conosciute come Amazon e eBay già vendessero prodotti di marca, (ad es: L’Oréal) e di conseguenza non v’era motivo, per Coty, di proibire la rivendita tramite tali piattaforme. Inoltre, ha sostenuto Parfümerie Akzente, le piattaforme online sono importanti per le piccole e le medie imprese. Possibili indicazioni su come la Corte avrebbe potuto decidere sono apparse il 26 luglio 2017, allorché l’Avvocato Generale ha fornito le proprie conclusioni, concludendo che il divieto di usare piattaforme fosse ammissibile, purché “tale clausola contrattuale sia condizionata dalla natura del prodotto, se essa sia stabilita in modo uniforme e applicata indifferentemente e se essa non vada oltre il necessario” (paragrafo 122 delle conclusioni dell’Avvocato Generale; vedi il post precedente “Distribuzione online – Divieti di vendite su piattaforme online nella distribuzione selettiva (il caso Coty perdura)”).

        Conclusioni pratiche

        Il caso Coty è estremamente rilevante per la distribuzione in Europa perché più del 70% degli oggetti di lusso del mondo sono venduti qui, e molti di essi vengono venduti online. Per maggiori implicazioni sulle reti di distribuzione esistenti e future e sui rispettivi accordi, restate in contatto, continueremo ad aggiornarvi su Legalmondo!

        Based on our experience in many years advising and representing companies in the commercial distribution (in Spanish jurisdiction but with foreign manufacturers or distributors), the following are the six key essential elements for manufacturers (suppliers) and retailers (distributors) when establishing a distribution relationship.

        These ideas are relevant when companies intend to start their commercial relationship but they should not be neglected and verified even when there are already existing contacts.

        The signature of the contract

        Although it could seem obvious, the signature of a distribution agreement is less common than it might seem. It often happens that along the extended relationship, the corporate structures change and what once was signed with an entity, has not been renewed, adapted, modified or replaced when the situation has been transformed. It is very convenient to have well documented the relationship at every moment of its existence and to be sure that what has been covered legally is also enforceable y the day-to-day commercial relationship. It is advisable this work to be carried out by legal specialists closely with the commercial department of the company. Perfectly drafted clauses from a legal standpoint will be useless if overtaken or not understood by the day-to-day activity. And, of course, no contract is signed as a “mere formality” and then modified by verbal agreements or practices.

        The proper choice of contract

        If the signature of the distribution contract is important, the choice of the correct type is essential. Many of the conflicts that occur, especially in long-term relationships, begin with the interpretation of the type of relationship that has been signed. Even with a written text (and with an express title), the intention of the parties remains often unclear (and so the agreement). Is the “distributor” really so? Does he buy and resell or there are only sporadic supply relationships? Is there just a representative activity (ie, the distributor is actually an “agent“)? Is there a mixed relationship (sometimes represents, sometimes buys and resells)? The list could continue indefinitely. Even in many of the relationships that currently exist I am sure that the interpretation given by the Supplier and the Distributor could be different.

        Monitoring of legal and business relations

        If it is quite frequent not to have a clear written contract, it happens in almost all the distribution relationships than once the agreement has been signed, the day-to-day commercial activity modifies what has been agreed. Why commercial relations seem to neglect what has been written in an agreement? It is quite frequent contracts in which certain obligations for distributors are included (reporting on the market, customers, minimum purchases), but which in practice are not respected (it seems complicated, there is a good relationship between the parties, and nobody remembers what was agreed by people no longer working at the company…). However, it is also quite frequent to try to use these (real?) defaults later on when the relationship starts having problems. At that moment, parties try to hide behind these violations to terminate the contracts although these practices were, in a sort of way, accepted as a new procedure. Of course no agreement can last forever and for that reason is highly recommendable a joint and periodical monitoring between the legal adviser (preferably an independent one with the support of the general managers) and the commercial department to take into account new practices and to have a provision in the contractual documents.

        Evidences about customers

        In distribution contracts, evidences about customers will be essential in case of termination. Parties (mainly the supplier) are quite interested in showing evidences on who (supplier or distributor) procured the customers. Are they a result of the distributor activity or are they obtained as a consequence of the reputation of the trademark? Evidences on customers could simplify or even avoid future conflicts. The importance of the clientele and its possible future activity will be a key element to define the compensation to which the distributor will pretend to be eligible.

        Evidences on purchases and sales

        Another essential element and quite often forgotten is the justification of purchases to the supplier and subsequent sales by distributors. In any distribution agreement distributors acquire the products and resell them to the final customers. A future compensation to the distributor will consider the difference between the purchase prices and resale prices (the margin). It is therefore advisable to be able to establish the correspondent evidence on such information in order to better prepare a possible claim.

        Damages in case of termination of contracts

        Similarly, it would be convenient to justify what damages have been suffered as a result of the termination of a contract: has the distributor made investments by indication of the supplier that are still to be amortized? Has the distributor hired new employees for a line of business that have to be dismissed because of the termination of the contract (costs of compensation)? Has the distributor rented new premises signing long-term contracts due to the expectations on the agreement? Please, take into account that the Distributor is an independent trader and, as such, he assumes the risks of his activity. But to the extent he is acting on a distribution network he shall be subject to the directions, suggestions and expectations created by the supplier. These may be relevant to later determine the damages caused by the termination of the contract.

        [Initial note: This article is not aimed as a political article pro or con boycott movements or the Israeli government, but rather as a legal informative overview, in light of the actual and financial impact or exposure international business may have in the referred to matter.]

        It is perhaps not known to many international trading players, but under Israeli law, Bill for prevention of damage to the State of Israel through boycott – 2011, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 (after a slight interpretive adjustment), boycotting Israeli origin products, or deliberate avoidance of economic or academic ties, may give rise to a lawsuit for actual damages under civil law.

        In light of the international BDS movement, attempting to place pressure upon the State of Israel by means of economic and cultural pressure, Israel has realized such activity, indeed, causes actual harm and damage to Israeli based business, manufacturers, importers/exporters, etc., as well as to academic students and professors, and so on, in cultural ties of many sorts – just because the origin is Israel.

        This boycott movement affects the people and businesses of Israel, as opposed to  Israeli leaders or politicians or  the State of Israel as a state, and conveys questionable (to say the least) economic and cultural negative effects upon the people facing unprecedented obstacles in trade in the international arena – for no wrongdoing on their part.

        Regardless of the political opinion one may have concerning the legitimacy, or rather the non-legitimacy, of the BDS movement or concerning the current political policy of the State of Israel – the relatively new law provides actual legal tools to deal with negative economic outcomes (damages, loss of profits, etc.) that businesses or private people encounter or suffer from boycott measures, solely because of their affiliation or relation to the State of Israel.

        Regardless of any opinion of the act itself or its enactment, at the end of the day the act exists and may be used and exploited by filing civil lawsuits against anyone who called for or participated in a boycott. In that sense it creates a new civil wrong as part of the Israeli tort laws.

        Moreover, even a deliberate avoidance of economic, cultural or academic ties can raise liability for the avoider towards the business or ties avoided, as well as liability for anyone who has called for the boycott or publicly expressed support of it.

        The law goes even further – and also excludes the defense argument of “sufficient justification” and thus provides that anyone who has caused or led to a breach of a contract, by calling for a boycott, may be liable for damages, as well.

        As for the damages that can be claimed, after the adjustment to the law according to the Supreme Court ruling of 2015 (ruling that compensation must be awarded in correspondence with the actual damages or loss of profit caused, and cancelled the clause for penal compensation) – the entity that may sue for torts is the entity that suffered the damage and what can be sued for is the actual damage according to the regular Israeli torts law.

        The law also prohibits a person who calls for a boycott from participating in any public tender, but this is a different focus from the side of the state.

        It is worth mentioning  that the rationale for this legislation was also reviewed by the widely respected Israeli Supreme Court, that has strongly elaborated that such legislation is constitutional and, inter alia, that international entities and individuals such as the BDS movement (as opposed perhaps to states) should not be able to harm or interfere with international or domestic economic affairs without at least being accountable for the outcome of such, and that freedom of speech cannot be unlimitedly protected when it in fact calls for action (or for refraining from action)  that has an actual impact on another and is not simply an expression of an opinion.

        To date, it seems that the Magistrates and District Courts of Israel have yet to render judgments in actual cases based on the boycott act, indicating that the implementation of the act is still inchoate. However, it seems that instances and measures of boycotting are on the rise and the methods of boycotting are becoming increasingly overt, in a manner that is bound to lead to considerable litigation in the near future.

        Needless to say, issues of jurisdiction, and other aspects of private international law, or imposing jurisdiction on foreign players, are also yet to be resolved in reference to the emergence of lawsuits under the boycott law, but these will surely find their creative legal solutions with the actual submission of lawsuits concerning real life cases.

        Per descrivere le trattative precontrattuali in Cina è necessario spendere qualche parola sulle differenze culturali, sulle abilità da utilizzare durante la fase negoziale e sulle tecniche di redazione dei contratti.

        Tutti questi 3 punti sono importanti quando si avvia una negoziazione con una controparte straniera, ma lo sono ancor di più quando si contratta con una controparte cinese.

        In primis è fondamentale fare conoscenza con la cultura cinese prima di cominciare le trattative, specialmente se l’altro contraente (come spesso accade) non è molto esperto nel commercio internazionale e solo in poche occasioni ha negoziato con uomini d’affari o consulenti stranieri.

        È bene aver presente che un businessman cinese si siederà al tavolo delle trattative solo dopo aver instaurato un rapporto personale con l’altro contraente, basato sulla fiducia ed il rispetto reciproco.

        Chi crede che si possa giungere alla stipula di un contratto importante con una semplice viaggio di un paio di giorni in Cina o, ancor peggio, a distanza, è molto distante dalla realtà. Serviranno diversi incontri, diversi pranzi di lavoro e qualche drink per rompere il ghiaccio e preparare il terreno per i discorsi d’affari. È probabile, perciò, che siano necessari diversi viaggi in Cina per concludere l’affare: la fretta è sempre una cattiva consigliera e i cinesi sono negoziatori molto pazienti.

        Nell’era di Internet può accadere che gli accordi siano conclusi a distanza, tramite lo scambio digitale di proposta e accettazione: ciò è raro con una controparte cinese, e non è un caso che molto spesso gli accordi così conclusi siano quelli più insidiosi, che spesso nascondono vere e proprie truffe.

        Meglio, allora, prepararsi a lunghi negoziati e, anche se il contratto è concluso, non sovrastimarne il valore. Se nei paesi occidentali l’accordo scritto è visto come il punto d’arrivo dei negoziati, come una sorta di Bibbia del rapporto d’affari, in Cina i contratti sono considerati come non più di una tappa – seppur importante – del rapporto: spesso, infatti, il contratto viene visto più come una mera lettera d’intenti orientativa che come un accordo vincolante.

        Accade frequentemente che la controparte cinese richieda cambiamenti dopo la firma del contratto, o semplicemente disapplichi gli accordi presi con tanta fatica, accampando le motivazioni più varie: occorre essere consapevoli di questo atteggiamento e farsi trovare pronti a richieste di rinegoziare l’accordo o – soluzione preferibile – inserire sin dall’inizio clausole e procedure per adattare il testo contrattuale alle frequenti modifiche che potrebbero essere necessarie.

        Prima di sedersi finalmente al tavolo delle trattative è meglio essere sicuri che sia presente un traduttore affidabile: spesso la vostra controparte non parlerà in inglese e si affiderà completamente al traduttore, che potrebbe rovinare lo svolgimento della discussione nel caso in cui non padroneggiasse correttamente la terminologia necessaria.

        Inoltre è fondamentale essere pazienti e non perdere mai il controllo: non bisogna dimenticare che mentre la tradizione del mondo occidentale è quella di procedere in maniera lineare nelle trattative, passando ordinatamente da una clausola all’altra, in Cina si adotta spesso un approccio olistico, discutendo sempre il contratto nella sua integrità: può allora capitare di trovarsi a ridiscutere clausole su cui si era già trovato un accordo il giorno prima, senza alcuna motivazione specifica.

        Occorre tenere a mente, infine, che i negoziatori cinesi non amano il confronto diretto e in caso di disaccordo difficilmente prendono posizioni nette sulle questioni oggetto di discussione: spesso un sì in realtà significa no, e “ci devo pensare” quasi sicuramente equivale ad un futuro diniego.

        La linea di fondo non è diversa da quella che dovrebbe orientare tutte le negoziazioni contrattuali: trovare un accordo bilanciato, che soddisfi gli interessi di tutte le parti; iniziare le trattative con una bozza di contratto chiaramente sbilanciata a vostro favore non solo complicherà il negoziato, ma potrebbe addirittura comprometterlo sul nascere.

        The Italian Court of Cassation, United Sections (judgement no. 24244 of 27 November 2015), recently issued a judgement on the applicability of article 5 no. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, now corresponding to article 7 no. 1 of the Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis).

        The above-referenced provision sets a special forum in matters relating to a contract, providing for the competence of the courts located in the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to letter b) of this provision, in case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.

        In the case brought before the Court of Cassation, an Italian company – while objecting the claim of a French company regarding the conclusion of some sale agreements that the latter stated to have entered into with the first one – asked for a declaratory judgement stating the inexistence of any contractual obligation between the parties, and, alternatively, for a declaration that the alleged agreements were null and void.

        First of all, the Court of Cassation asserted the applicability of article 5, letter b) of the Brussels I Regulation to the case de quo.

        Albeit recognizing that the abovementioned provision seems to refer only to actions addressed to the performance of a contract and not to actions regarding the dissolution of a contractual obligation, the Italian Supreme Court has considered that also claims aiming at ascertaining the inexistence, invalidity or ineffectiveness of an agreement concern matters relating to a contract. More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that such claims involve an initial, actual or alleged, voluntary assumption of an obligation, of which they tend, in several ways, to default. In the light of this assumption and considering that the delivery of the goods was supposed to take place in France (according to the contractual documents evidenced during the proceedings), the Court of Cassation has found that Italian Courts were lacking jurisdiction over the case, thus confirming the judgement previously issued by the Court of Appeal.

        The judgement of the Italian United Sections is important because it has definitively confirmed, consistently with the European uniform trend, that the place of delivery is the only autonomous linking factor to be applied to all claims grounded on contracts for the sale of goods and not only to claims based on the non-performance of the delivery obligation itself.

        The author of this article is Silvia Petruzzino.