Commercial agents not required to be directly involved with orders
Supreme Court judgment 7 April 2022, HR-2022-728-A, (case no. 20-183236SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
Norep AS (Counsel Magne Mjaaland) v. Haugen-Gruppen AS (Counsel Thor Einar Kristiansen)
After a grocery supplier had terminated an agreement with another company for sales and agency work, the latter claimed indemnity under section 28 of the Agency Act. Customers' orders had – consistently after a new and revised agreement was signed in 2008 – gone directly to the supplier. Unlike the previous instances, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not a condition for having status as a commercial agent under section 1 of the Agency Act that the agent received orders and forwarded them to the supplier. This was in line with an interpretative statement obtained from the EFTA Court. This statement was clear, and built on a number of European sources of law. Internal sources of law provided no conclusive evidence to the contrary. The Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside.
Area of law: Agency law. Sections 1 and 28 of the Agency Act.
Key paragraphs: 50-53.
Justices: Øie, Matheson, Falkanger, Ringnes, Bergh