The Federal Supreme Court affirmed a legal principle that the client may not terminate the agency contract or not renew it unless there is a substantive reason justifying the expiry or non-renewal, noting that if the agent violates his contractual obligations a fundamental breach, then this is a fundamental reason justifying the termination of the agency or written off on This is contingent upon the client not also violating - in return - his contractual obligations, stressing that the obligation to implement the contract is a reciprocal obligation, which is fulfilled by each of the parties to fulfill their obligations.
The court upheld a ruling issued by the court of first instance to reject a lawsuit filed by a commercial company against a company contracted with it to market its products, requesting the agency's contract be broken between them, after the latter failed to adequately market its products, while the court indicated that the assigned claiming company also violated its obligations to contract it by supplying Its products, within the area of the agency restricted to - the agent - the defendant, to another company.
A commercial company had filed a lawsuit, demanding the termination of the contract between it and its agent to market its products, and striking out the commercial agency from the register of commercial agencies while preserving its right to compensation for all damages incurred.
The first instance court ruled to dismiss the case, then the Court of Appeal ruled to reject the appeal.
In the reasons for its support for the first-degree ruling to reject the lawsuit, the Federal Supreme Court pointed out that the text of Article 8 of Federal Law No. 18 of 1981 regarding the regulation of commercial agencies amended by Law No. 2 of 2010 led to “that the client may not terminate the agency contract or not renew it unless There is a fundamental reason that justifies the termination or non-renewal. ”In the concept of the violation, if this fundamental reason is found, the client may terminate the agency contract or non-renewal, and as a result of that, if the agent violates his contractual obligations a fundamental breach, then this is a fundamental reason that justifies the termination or cancellation of the agency. It is subject to no yach The principal is the other - in Almkabl- contractual obligations that the commitment to punctual implementation of the contract is a commitment to the fulfillment of the effect back to back both parties its obligations.
She pointed out that the constant of the papers and the experience report to which the court is assured of the integrity of the foundations on which it was based, and that if the defendant company - the agent - had breached its contractual obligations due to the failure to achieve adequate marketing of the products of the claiming company - the client - the claimant, in return, had breached its contractual obligations as well Because she had supplied her products within the agency’s area restricted to the defendant to another company, and if it was added to this that the plaintiff had not made way for the judiciary to request a cancellation of the agency since her contract in 1998 only after she had distributed her products to another company in violation of the law as well as after she had submitted a A defendant has filed a complaint against it with the Commercial Agencies Committee, and therefore, in light of what is fixed in the papers and case evidence mentioned above, the court does not see that there is a substantial reason justifying the cancellation of the agency in accordance with the provision of the aforementioned Article 8, which is with him the plaintiff’s request to delete the agency is not based on the basis We had to reject it, and then the court decided to reject the appeal and uphold the ruling in the first instance.