Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 3:37:38 GMT -5
The imposition of goals and an exclusivity pact constitute a distribution contract, even if not formalized. This is because, if the relationship were simply one of commercial purchase and sale, there would be no obligations between the parties. With this understanding, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the award of compensation for material damage to a company that did not comply with a 90-day notice period to break the agreement.
Disclosure
For Minister Nancy, sales meetings and targets prove that the contract was for distribution
The case involves a food distributor B2B Lead who, according to another company, made it comply with standards, achieve sales and customer acquisition targets and determined packages of products to be purchased for resale. In return, it offered an exclusivity pact to operate in certain areas and discounts. In addition, the distributor also provided bimonthly sales training.
“If between the parties there was only a relationship of commercial purchase and sale of products, there would be no obligation to resell the goods on the part of the acquirer, not even justifying meetings to improve sales strategies”, assessed the rapporteur of the process, minister Nancy Andrighi .
Recognizing the existence of a distribution contract between the parties, the food distributor should have observed the 90-day notice for the breach — in this case, it stopped offering a discount of around 25% on the purchase of food, which caused that the reseller company ceased to carry out the business.
With the decision, the ruling of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais was maintained, condemning the food distributor to pay material compensation in the amount equivalent to the net profit that the appellant would obtain from the resale of the products during the 90-day period of notice. not granted.