We share Judgment no. 265/2008 of the Provincial Court of Zaragoza, Section 2, of 13 May 2008, concerning an agency contract between a French company and a Spanish agent.
In these proceedings, handled by the firm Aránzazu Abogadosthe Spanish agency claimed compensation from a French company.
Below we set out the extract of the judgment and all the information relating to it.
Rapporteur: MARIA ELIA MATA ALBERT
Appeal number: 124/2008
Proceedings: CIVIL
Decision number: 265/2008
Decision date: 13 May 2008
Court: Provincial Court – Zaragoza, Section 2
vLex ID: VLEX-201437031
Link: http://vlex.com/vid/-201437031
Contents
- STATEMENT OF FACTS
- FIRST
- SECOND
- THIRD
- FOURTH
- LEGAL GROUNDS
- FIRST
- SECOND
- THIRD
- FOURTH
- FIFTH
- RULING
JUDGMENT: 00265/2008
JUDGMENT NUMBER: 265/08
IN THE NAME OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Honourable Sirs:
President:
- JULIAN CARLOS ARQUÉ BESCÓS
Judges:
- FRANCISCO ACIN GARÓS
Dª MARIA ELIA MATA ALBERT
In ZARAGOZA, on the thirteenth of May two thousand and eight.
SEEN by the Second Section of the Provincial Court of ZARAGOZA, on appeal, the proceedings of ORDINARY PROCEDURE 354/2005, coming from COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE No. 1 of ZARAGOZA, registered as APPEAL FILE NUMBER 124/2008, in which the appellant is REGIS FERRIERES SARL, represented by the court representative Dª LUCIA DEL RIO ARTAL and assisted by the lawyer Dª ARANZAZU CAGIGAL CASQUERO, and the respondent is Mr Jose Pedro, represented by the court representative Mr JOSE ANDRES ISIEGAS GERNER and assisted by the lawyer Mr JULIO TABANERA PITALUGA; in which proceedings a judgment was issued on 2 October 2006.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
FIRST
The facts set out in the appealed judgment are accepted, the operative part of which reads: “RULING: That upholding the claim filed by the court representative Mr JOSE ANDRES ISIEGAS GERNER, on behalf of Mr Jose Pedro, against REGIS FERRIERES SARL, I declare and do declare that it is well founded and, consequently, I order and do order the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of 23,853.98 euros, plus statutory interest from the date the claim was filed and the costs of the proceedings”.
SECOND
Against that judgment, the defendant filed a notice of appeal and, within the time limit, the statement of appeal, which was forwarded to the claimant, who filed a statement of opposition within the time limit. The case file was then sent to this Chamber for the appeal to be decided.
THIRD
As no new documents were submitted, no evidence was proposed, and a hearing was not considered necessary, deliberation and voting were set for 6 May 2008.
FOURTH
All legal requirements have been observed in the handling of the appeal.
The rapporteur in this appeal was the Hon. Judge Mr/Ms MARIA ELIA MATA ALBERT.
LEGAL GROUNDS
FIRST
The defendant appeals the judgment handed down at first instance, requesting its partial revocation and a declaration that the amount owed to the claimant as commissions is 8,558.91 euros for his intermediation in the transaction with OLDRIES and MAX CENTER, without any order for costs.
SECOND
The appellant argues that the commissions claimed for the transactions concluded with “Deverde Decoración, S.L.” are not due since, in summary, they would generate an unjust enrichment for the claimant, as they amount to no more than a contract concluded with himself (he is administrator and shareholder of Deverde) and not any promotion of the products and goods supplied by the defendant, which would make it more a distribution contract than the agency contract invoked by the claimant, and that documents no. 3 and 4, on which part of his claim is based, are not invoices but order delivery notes, which moreover did not give rise to any transaction since the goods they list were returned for reasons not attributable to Regis Ferrieres.
THIRD
The appeal as formulated, based therefore implicitly on an error in the assessment of the evidence taken in the case, cannot succeed. The judgment of Court of First Instance Number 14 of Zaragoza of 25 October 2004 (document number 9 of the claim) already established, regarding the contractual relations entered into by the litigants, that they signed an agency contract on 28 December 2000 (document no. 1 of the claim), under which commercial transactions were made either through the agent (the claimant), who received his commission, or by sale to the company Deverde Decoración, S.L., so that it in turn would resell Regis’s goods, the manner in which each transaction was formalised depending on Mr Jose Pedro, with the agent’s actions generating 20% commissions.
That case (Ordinary Proceedings number 1268/03) therefore recognised the claimant’s status as the defendant’s agent and the possibility of operating through his own company, circumstances that cannot now be denied in the face of a claim for commissions that was also raised there and was referred to a different declaratory proceeding.
In the absence of other evidence of the impropriety of the commissions earned on the invoices submitted as documents no. 5 to 8 of the claim, the ground must be rejected.
FOURTH
As regards the second ground, documents no. 3 and 4 of the claim refer to the acknowledgment and acceptance of the order of goods by ROTONDA DE OCIO, S.L. to Regis, specifying the products, the initial order faxes and the payment method.
The appellant points out that the invoices were never issued and therefore Regis received no payment, without having proven those facts by any means of evidence.
It also accepts that the goods were supplied but returned because there were problems with one of the products.
All this establishes the initial completion of the commercial transaction arranged through the claimant and, therefore, the merit of his claim, which has not been effectively refuted.
FIFTH
The dismissal of the appeal means the appellant must pay the costs incurred on appeal (Article 398 of the Civil Procedure Act ).
SEEN the articles cited and others relevant and of general application.
WE RULE
That dismissing the appeal lodged by REGIS FERRIERES SARL against the judgment handed down by Court of First Instance Number One of Zaragoza on 2 October 2007, we must confirm and do confirm it, with the appellant ordered to pay the costs incurred on appeal.
Let the proceedings be returned to the court of origin, together with a certified copy of this judgment, for its enforcement and compliance, acknowledging receipt.
Thus, by this our Judgment, a certified copy of which shall be attached to the appeal file, we pronounce, order and sign it.
PUBLICATION.- The foregoing Judgment was read and published by the Hon. Judge Rapporteur, while holding a public hearing, this Second Chamber, on the same date; I attest.
Extracted from vLex (Judgment no. 135/2009 of the Provincial Court of Navarre, Section 1, 1 September 2009)