In Duffen/Frabo13, Hallgarten Q.C. J. refused to accept the French approach to the two-year award and awarded compensation on the basis of the net salary that the agent could have obtained during the rest of the agency`s time. He is the author of the chapter on quantifying compensation due to the termination of commercial agencies under these orders in Susan Singleton`s book: Commercial Agency Agreements Law and Practice, Fifth Edition (February 2020) and previous editions. Regulation 18 provides that compensation or compensation is not paid to the agent if the contractor has terminated the agency contract “due to a delay attributable to the commercial agent who would justify the immediate termination of the agency contract in accordance with Regulation 16.” Spectrum rejected the options (i) and (ii), but was pleased to be able to continue to manage the Agency under its current terms. Crocs hesitated to resign because he would have faced a significant right to compensation under the regulations (estimated at $12 million to $1 million). The contract continued with a clumsy shutdown period for several months until Crocs terminated on the grounds that Spectrum had breached its obligations under Regulation 3. Crocs relied on a fake “Star Wars” crawl (which reflects the text that scrolls across the screen at the beginning of each Star Wars movie) created by a Spectrum employee, who mocked Crocs` difficulties over several years in making deliveries to British customers and emailing the crawl to several Crocs customers. However, the adjudicating entity made this decision to the Court of Appeal, which challenged the High Court`s decision. The Court of Appeal examined in more detail what the client knew of the agent`s other agency and when he came to the opposite conclusion that, at first, the client did not understand that the client was selling competing goods directly to his own. Therefore, it could not be ruled out that the client of this competing agency had agreed, so that the sale of directly competitive products from the agent was regarded in this case as a substantial breach of contract.
As the questions above show, there is no “one size fits all” answer to this problem. In the most extreme cases where the terms of the agency contract have been explicitly ignored by the agent or where the goods are directly in competition with those of the client, it is more likely that the client will be entitled to it (depending on his choice): a distributor is not positive either an employee (right to a salary, etc.) or an employee (right to commissions and rights under the regulations if the client resigns). On the negative side, a trader will ask for another scale of increase in exchange for the profile and input, which contributes to the sale of the goods. Often traders will be more interested in the goods once the market is clearly established for them. Moore-Bick L.J. analyzed previous cases and stated that Page was of “limited support.” He also considered that the adoption of the French rule in King v Tunnock was not fair and stated that the two-year compensation rule could not be supported “as a broad directive”. He went on to argue that the factors considered in Tigana are relevant only in light of the agency`s assessment of its activities.27