Margen neto en la indemnización por clientela

Indemnizacion por clientela

El Tribunal Supremo establece que el cálculo de la indemnización por clientela en contratos de distribución debe hacerse sobre el margen neto en lugar del bruto.

In its judgment of 1 March 2017, the Supreme Court has stated that,,es,figure clientele compensation can be applied to other various contractual relations agency contract to keep him always identity of reason,,es la figura de la indemnización por clientela puede aplicarse a otras relaciones contractuales distintas del contrato de agencia siempre que guarden con él identidad de razón and that, in such cases, compensation should be applied according to the theory of net margin.

From 1993, the entity Esjucri S.L.. He lent to the company Royal Canin Iberica S.A. servicios de distribución en exclusiva de sus productos. In 1998 that contract was terminated, pactándose compensation for clientele 5% Billing. In 2003 the parties resumed the contractual relationship, until, in 2010, Royal Canin Ibérica S.A. She decided to terminate the contractual relationship purchases stagnation and lack of fulfillment of the objectives set, que suponían un breach of contract por parte de Esjuri S.L. Then, Royal Canin Ibérica S.A. Esjuri he not paid S.L.. any customer indemnity.

So things, Esjuri S.L. She filed a complaint against Royal Canin Iberica S.A. en reclamación de 794.431,33 € en concepto de indemnización de clientela, namely, as compensation for the benefit perceived by Royal Canin Iberica S.A. as a result of ongoing marketing effort Esjuri S.L., which it had generated a permanent network and regular clients (for more information, This comment is more deeply that figure).

That application was granted by the Court of First Instance No. 77 Madrid, in its judgment dated 22/02/2003, he decided to apply by analogy Article 28 de la Ley del Contrato de Agencia (which is the figure provided compensation for customers).

And the embroidery, Royal Canin Ibérica S.A. He appealed against that judgment, which it was estimated by the Madrid Provincial Court by its judgment of 20/06/2014, in which it reduced the amount of compensation 400.000 €.

Not content with this, Royal Canin Ibérica S.A. He made an appeal asking, on the one hand, a declaration that Article 28 the Agency Agreement Act had been misapplied the course, and other, that compensation for customers had been wrongly calculated.

As it regards the first ground, namely, As for the possible misapplication of compensation for -figure own clientele of the agency contract, but it analogically applies to other contracts in which, as in this case, the relationship between the parties keeps identity of reason-, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had acted correctly by analogy apply Article 28 Law of Agency Agreement. A trial court, the posición auxiliar y accesoria de la empresa distribuidora en el diseño y comercialización de los productos, the carácter de exclusividad ratio, and his integración en una red nacional operada por el empresario constituían elementos suficientes para justificar que Royal Canin Ibérica S.A. should compensate Esjuri S.L.. for the benefit they would get after the termination of the contract by the customer that the distribution activity of the latter had provided and consolidated.

On the other hand, en cuanto al error en el cálculo de la compensation for clientele, the Supreme Court sí le dio la razón a Royal Canin Ibérica S.A, because the two sentences instance had calculated the amount of compensation for the difference between the purchase price of the goods to the supplier and the retail price (gross margin theory), when they should be having calculated on the net profits earned by the distributor, deducting all expenses and taxes (teoría del margen neto). Como indica la propia sentencia, con cita de la STS 356/2016, of 30/05/2016:

«[…] However, sí hay jurisprudencia que considera que en el contrato de distribución, para establecer la cuantía de la indemnización por clientela, ha de utilizarse como criterio orientador el establecido en el citado artículo 28 LCA , pero calculado, en vez de sobre las comisiones percibidas por el agente, sobre los beneficios netos obtenidos por el distribuidor (21 March 2007), namely, el porcentaje de beneficio que le queda al distribuidor una vez descontados los gastos y los impuestos, y no sobre el margen comercial, que es la diferencia entre el precio de adquisición de las mercancías al proveedor y el precio de venta al público (20 May) cuyo importe tendrá el carácter de máximo».

El razonamiento anterior determinó que el recurso de casación interpuesto por Royal Canin Ibérica fuera estimado en cuanto a la reducción del importe de la indemnización por clientela, aplicando el margen neto, y no el bruto.

Consult your case now

 

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required