Mercantile International Group Plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 288 (8th March, 2002)

Mercantile International Group Plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 288 (8th March, 2002)

MIG was a commercial agent within the meaning of regulation 2(1) because the contractual documentation and consistent course of dealing over twenty years established that MIG had continuing authority to negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of and in the name of CSH, and the mark-up arrangement did not alter the substance of the agency relationship.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 288
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mercantile International Group plc; Defendant/appellant: Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Commercial Agents, Agency Relationship, Remuneration by Mark Up, Interpretation of Agency Agreements, Entitlement to Compensation Under Commercial Agents Regulations
Commercial Law Agency Law Commercial Agents Agency Relationship Remuneration by Mark Up Interpretation of Agency Agreements Entitlement to Compensation Under Commercial Agents Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercantile International Group plc

Claimant/respondent

Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mercantile International Group plc (MIG) was a 'commercial agent' within the meaning of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
  2. 2 Whether the substance of the relationship between MIG and CSH was one of agency or sale/resale

Ratio Decidendi

MIG was a commercial agent within the meaning of regulation 2(1) because the contractual documentation and consistent course of dealing over twenty years established that MIG had continuing authority to negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of and in the name of CSH, and the mark-up arrangement did not alter the substance of the agency relationship.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay respondent’s costs in and of the appeal
  • Costs to be assessed