Indice
ToggleOne of the most frequently used and widely used clauses in agency contracts is certainly the 'minimum turnover' clause. With this clause, the parties establish the minimum annual turnover threshold that the agent must contribute to the principal.
In this regard, the question arises as to the validity of this clause and the consequences if the agent fails to meet the agreed thresholds.
Firstly, on a preliminary basis, so to speak, according to case law, the agreed turnover must be fairSecondly, it is noted that a clause granting the principal the power to unilaterally modify the minimum turnover figures during the course of the relationship is of doubtful validity: as a matter of principle, the parties cannot always and indiscriminately introduce contractual clauses conferring on one party the power to modify the contract in a discretionary manner, especially if they concern fundamental elements of the relationship, such as, for example, the zonethe agent's customer package, the commissionscontractual minimums, etc..
According to settled case-law, this power vested in the principal is, in principle, also subject to the general principles of our legal system of fairness and good faith in the performance of the contractual relationship, governed precisely by Articles 1175, 1375 and 1749 of the Civil Code.[1] In general, in an agency contract, the assignment to the principal of the power to modify essential elements of the relationship must "be justified by the need to better adapt the relationship to the needs of the parties as they have changed over time"[2] e not may result in a substantial circumvention of contractual obligations.
That said, in principle, case law holds that the failure to reach an agreed minimum implies a de facto default of the agent. The biggest problem is to understand whether this constitutes a breach of such gravity as to justify termination by the principal.
In the event that the parties had not foreseen anything in this regard, it will be necessary to assess, on a case-by-case basis, the seriousness of this breach and whether it could constitute a termination for just cause or termination of the contract.
If, on the contrary, the parties had expressly provided in the contract that failure to reach the minimums would result in the immediate termination of the relationship and, therefore, had provided for a express termination clause under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, it must be held that until a few years ago case law unequivocally held that:
"when [...] the parties, in their autonomy and freedom of bargaining, have previously assessed the significance of a specific non-performance, implying that the non-performance is of retermination of the contract without notice, the court may not make any enquiry into the extent of the non-performance itself in relation to the interest of the other contracting partybut must only accept whether it is attributable to the obligor at least by reason of fault, which is presumed under Art. 1218 of the Civil Code.".[3]
This jurisprudential direction has been radically changed by a more recent (and now consolidated) orientation of the Court in 2011,[4] in which the Court of Cassation, although on the one hand recognised the legitimacy of inserting an express termination clause in the contract, on the other hand partially limited its effectiveness: in this ruling, the Court specified that the termination of an agency contract by virtue of an express termination clause entails the preliminary and necessary verification by the court of the existence of a breach. The judge, specifically, will have to verify whether:
- the breach is of such gravity as to exclude theallowance for lack of notice pursuant to Article 1750 of the Civil Code;
- the breach is of such gravity as to exclude the agent's right to receive theseverance pay pursuant to Article 1751 of the Civil Code.
These are briefly analysed below.
(a) Indemnity for lack of notice
It is well established that the agency contract is subject to aanalogous application of Art. 2119 of the Civil Code., which provides for the right of the parties to terminate without notice in the event of a cause that does not permit the continuation, even provisional, of the relationship.
On the basis of this assumption, the aforementioned case law has therefore held that in the event of recourse by the principal to an express termination clause, the latter may be considered valid to the extent that it justifies a termination in the first place, since the freedom of the parties cannot in fact be absolute. The judge, in such cases, will have to ascertain whether the failure to achieve the budget is a "cause that does not permit the continuation, even temporarily, of the relationship'..[5]
Applying this principle to the minimum turnover clause, the case law on the merits has recently held that in itself the failure to achieve the budget of sale does not legitimise an immediate termination of the relationship by the principal,
"because [...] it is not one of the agent's obligations to cause the principal to achieve a certain turnover and because it is not possible, in principle, to charge the agent for the failure to achieve objectives, irrespective of whether or not that failure is attributable to the agent's defaulting behaviour.[6]
b) Severance pay
Similarly, as far as theseverance pay, the assessment of the gravity of the breach must be made on the basis of the standard set forth in Article 1751 of the Civil Code, which also makes the termination of this indemnity conditional upon the occurrence of a breach which, because of its seriousness "does not permit the continuation, even temporarily, of the relationship."
Since Art. 1751 of the Civil Code expressly provides that all the provisions contained therein are mandatory to the detriment of the agent, the possibility of excluding the agent's right to the termination indemnity shall be subject to the existence of a serious breach, irrespective of the insertion within the contract of an express termination clause.[7]
It follows that the non-achievement of the objectives, if it is unrelated to precise and specific failures of the agent that must be specifically proved by the principal, cannot be used as a ground for the breach of the fiduciary relationship such as to prevent the continuation of the relationship.[8]
__________________________
[1] On this point cf. Cass. Civ. No. 9924, 2009.
[2] Cass. Civ. no. 5467, no. 2000.
[5] Cass. Civ. 14.2.2011 no. 3595.
[6] Brescia Court of Appeal of 15.9.2019.
[7] Cf. on this point Court of Modena 10 June 2011.
[8] Id. Brescia Court of Appeal of 15.9.2019.