-
Singapour -
Vietnam
RCEP – The largest Free Trade Agreement
19 novembre 2020
- Distribution
- Investissements
Wine Market in Mexico 2020-2021
The wine market in Mexico has shown an annual growth of approximately 8% during the past 5 years.
Importations have increased during the past 10 years, increasing its value in 88%.
Mexico has the second highest consumption growth rate worldwide according to the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV).
Current Trends in Mexico
Mexican wines accounted for 29% of Mexico’s consumption, while the remaining 71% corresponds to imported wines.
Wine consumption is primarily concentrated in 3 cities, Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara, with a potential increase in touristic locations.
Due to the health contingency generated as a result of the COVID19, on-line sales of the various supermarkets have increased in 300% during 2020.
Digitalization of processes represents a huge potential in terms of sales’ increase, and are expected to grow in a 40% yearly.
Consumers in Mexico are under 45 years old, having a pretty good balance in terms of gender (55% male and 45 female).
Types of wine consumed (71% red, 11% white, 9% sparkling, and 9% rose and others).
Comparison of wine consumption per capita
Following we share the following available information to illustrate differences between specific countries on current wine consumption per capita.
| Country | Consumption per capita |
| France | 49.5 lts |
| Italy | 43.0 lts |
| Austria | 29.4 lts |
| Spain | 27.8 lts |
| United States | 10.14 lts |
| China | 1.7 lts |
| Brazil | 1.6 lts |
| Mexico | 1.34 lts |
For more information you can visit our country guide on wine distribution in Mexico and watch the following video
Resale prices maintenance on the internet is unlawful while ban on resale on third-party platforms seems to be a new lawful option
In a nutshell
On December 3, 2020 the French Competition Authority (the FCA) :
- reiterated clearly the illegality of behavior aimed at imposing resale prices, especially in e-commerce and then condemned Dammann Frères, a French manufacturer of premium teas, to a € 226,000 fine for imposing minimum online resale prices maintenance on its distributors
- extended the right of ban on resale on third-party platforms from selective distribution of luxury products to quite common commercial relations, and then rejected the alleged illegality of this ban.
Between “recommended” and “imposed” resale prices: a dangerous game to play
Article L 442-6 of French Commercial Code prohibits « imposing, directly or indirectly, a minimum character at the resale price of a good, at the price of a service or at a commercial margin”. The FCA has ruled that, under the pretext of communicating recommended prices to its distributors, Dammann Frères has in fact imposed resale prices on them, failure to comply with these prices being punishable by retaliations (removal or reduction of the amount of discounts granted to them, delay in deliveries, removal of their contact details from the list of distributors presented on its website, disruption of supply, or even termination of commercial relations).
The supplier justified – vainly – this practice by its will to preserve the image and the positioning of its products but above all to avoid excessive price differences between resales by distributors on the internet and those carried out by network stores (where dealers had more latitude in setting prices).
The restriction of competition resulting from resale price maintenance can be obvious when contractual stipulations directly fix the price; but it can be deduced from a set of indices which is characterized according to a method strictly applied by the FCA :
- the supplier communicates its (recommended) resale prices to distributors,
- the latter apply them significantly and,
- a “price policing” system is put in place to prevent the price agreement from being questioned by deviant distributors. This mechanism results in price monitoring by the supplier (or even by other distributors, etc.),
- this leads to pressure, or even retaliation, to force distributors to align their prices upwards, such as delivery delays, supply disruptions, removal of discounts, etc.
There is a fine line between a price surveillance mechanism and a price constraint mechanism. This legal insecurity has been criticized and the European Commission could provide, on the occasion of the upcoming reform of the European block exemption regulation on vertical restraints, additional advice on the circumstances in which recommended resale prices should be qualified as imposed resale prices. The reform expected in 2022 could even go further by highlighting the pro-competitive effects of resale price maintenance.
Ban on resale on third-party platforms: a serious option to consider
With regard to the ban on the resale of its products on third-party platforms, openly imposed by Dammann Frères, the FCA took a rather liberal and innovative approach by applying the rules of the Coty case law (ruling of 6 12 2017, Coty Germany GmbH, C 230/16) to decide ultimately that there is no need to prosecute and therefore to fine. If this approach is confirmed later on by French courts, it will have a considerable impact on suppliers ‘policy who seek to control and restrict the terms of resale of their products on third-party platforms such as Amazon or e-Bay.
In this case, the FCA noted that the tea manufacturer’s market share was less than 30% and that this restriction did not constitute a hardcore restriction. Indeed, the FCA noted that this practice (i) did not prohibit distributors from selling products online nor from marketing themselves through third party websites (advertising and use of search engines) and (ii) did not constitute a restriction on the number of distributors, as the prosecution file did not evidence the number of customers of these platforms amongst the group of online buyers.
The FCA’s decision is therefore extends the Coty case law according to which the supplier of a selective distribution network for luxury products can prohibit the resale of its products on third-party platforms in order to preserve the image of its products (see our comments Here).
The FCA had already extended the Coty case law to technical products in a decision of 24 October 2018 (n ° 18-D-23), concerning the practices of the company Stihl, leader in mechanized garden equipment (mainly confirmed on appeal, Paris court of appeal 17 10 19), where the FCA, in a premonitory manner, stated: “it is important to specify that the analysis carried out by the Court of justice in the Coty ruling for the online marketing of luxury products seems likely to be extended to other types of products ”(see our comments Here).
The FCA is now going even further because, even though Dammann Frères teas are “high-end” positioned, they are neither luxury products nor even distributed through a selective distribution network.
Key takeaway
As part of its relations with its distributors, the supplier must ensure:
- not to stipulate any express minimum resale price clause;
- not to implement a system, nor tolerate practices, of commercial retaliation against distributors deviating from the minimum « recommended » prices (or even threaten them to do so);
- not to prohibit them from selling the products online or from advertising online;
- carefully examine the possibility of prohibiting them from reselling its products on third-party platforms.
International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.
The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.
What are the best practices to manage international receivables?
The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.
The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.
Verification of the identity of the company
Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.
Request of financial information
What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.
Use the right contract
What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…
Write down your agreements
Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?
Follow your contract
If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.
Document all transactions
From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.
Has the debtor risen objections?
Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.
Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments
In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.
Seek guarantees for your credits
This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.
Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.
Check out our webinar on debt collection
On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.
You can watch the recording of the webinar here.
Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection
If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.
Under Vietnam’s presidency of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), after eight years of negotiations, the ten ASEAN member states (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) on 15 November 2020 signed a groundbreaking free trade agreement (FTA) with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
The ASEAN economic community is a free trade area kickstarted in 2015 among the above-mentioned ten members of the homonymous association, comprising an aggregate GDP of US$2.6 trillion and over 622 million people. ASEAN is China’s main trading partner, with the European Union now slipping into second place.
Unlike the EuroZone and the European Union, ASEAN does not have a single currency, nor common institutions, like the EU Commission, Parliament and Council. Similarly to what happens in the EU, though, a single member holds a rotational presidency.
Individual ASEAN Countries, like Vietnam and Singapore, have recently entered into free trade agreements with the European Union, whilst the entire ASEAN block had and still has in place the so-called “plus one” agreements with other regional Countries, namely The People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, The Republic of Korea, India, Japan and Australia and New Zealand together.
With the exception of India, all the other Countries with “plus one” agreements with ASEAN are now part of the RCEP, which will gradually overtake individual FTAs through the harmonisation of rules, especially those related to origin.
RCEP negotiations accelerated with the United States of America’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) upon the election of President Trump in 2016 (although it is worth noting that a large part of the US Democratic Party also opposed the TPP).
The TPP would have then been the largest free trade agreement ever and, as the name suggest, would have put together twelve nations on the Pacific Ocean, namely Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the USA. With the exclusion of the latter, the other eleven did indeed sign a similar agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
The CPTPP has however been ratified only by seven of its signatories and clearly lacks the largest economy and most significant partner of all. At the same time, both the aborted TPP and the CPTPP evidently exclude China.
The RCEP’s weight is therefore self evidently heavier, as it encompasses 2.1 billion people, with its signatories accounting for around 30% of the world’s GDP. And the door for India’s 1.4 billion people and US$2.6 trillion GDP remains open, the other members stated.
Like most FTAs, RCEP’s aim is to lower tariffs, open up trade in goods and services and promote investments. It also briefly covers intellectual property, but makes no mention of environmental protections and labour rights. Its signatories include very advanced economies, like Singapore’s, and quite poor ones, like Cambodia’s.
RCEP’s significance is at this very moment probably more symbolic than tangible. Whilst it is estimated that around 90% of tariffs will be abolished, this will only occur over a period of twenty years after entry into force, which will happen only after ratification. Furthermore, the service industry and even more notably agriculture do not represent the core of the agreement and therefore will still be subject to barriers and domestic rules and restrictions. Nonetheless, it is estimated that, even in these times of pandemic, the RCEP will contribute some US$40billion more, annually, to the world’s GDP, than the CPTPP does (US$186billion vis-à-vis US$147billion) for ten consecutive years.
Its immediate impact is geopolitical. Whilst signatories are not exactly best friends with each other (think of territorial disputes over the South China Sea, for instance), the message is clear:
- The majority of this part of the world has tackled the Covid-19 pandemic remarkably well, but cannot afford to open its borders to Europeans and Americans any time soon, lest the virus spread again. Therefore, it has to try and iron out internal tensions, if it wants to see some positive signs within its economies given by private trade, in addition to (not always good) deficit spending by the State. Most of these Countries do rely heavily on Western talents, tourists, goods, services and even strategic and military support, but they are realistic about the fact that, unless the much touted vaccine works really well really soon, the West will struggle with this coronavirus for many months, if not years.
- Multilateralism is key and isolationism is dangerous. The ASEAN bloc and the Australia-New Zealand duo work exactly in this peaceful and pro-business direction.
The ASEAN’s official website (https://asean.org/?static_post=rcep-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership) is very clear in this regard and states, in fact that:
RCEP will provide a framework aimed at lowering trade barriers and securing improved market access for goods and services for businesses in the region, through:
- Recognition to ASEAN Centrality in the emerging regional economic architecture and the interests of ASEAN’s FTA partners in enhancing economic integration and strengthening economic cooperation among the participating countries;
- Facilitation of trade and investment and enhanced transparency in trade and investment relations between the participating countries, as well as facilitation of SMEs’ engagements in global and regional supply chains; and
- Broaden and deepen ASEAN’s economic engagements with its FTA partners.
RCEP recognises the importance of being inclusive, especially to enable SMEs leverage on the agreement and cope with challenges arising from globalisation and trade liberalisation. SMEs (including micro-enterprises) make up more than 90% of business establishments across all RCEP participating countries and are important to every country’s endogenous development of their respective economy. At the same time, RCEP is committed to provide fair regional economic policies that mutually benefit both ASEAN and its FTA partners.
Still, the timing is right also for EU businesses. As mentioned, the EU has in place FTAs with Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, an Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan, and is negotiating separately with both Australia and New Zealand.
Generally, all these agreements create common rules for all the players involved, thus making it is simpler for companies to trade in different territories. With caveats on entry into force and rules of origin, Countries that have signed both an FTA with the EU and the RCEP, notably Singapore, a major English speaking hub, that ranks first in East Asia in the Rule of Law index (third in the region after New Zealand and Australia and twelfth worldwide: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/Singapore%20-%202020%20WJP%20Rule%20of%20Law%20Index%20Country%20Press%20Release.pdf), could bridge both regions and facilitate global trade even during these challenging times.
Under French law, terms of payment of contracts of sale or of services (food excluded) are strictly regulated (art. L441-10.I Commercial code) as follows:
- Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the standard time limit for settling the sums due may not exceed 30 days.
- Parties can agree on a time of payment which cannot exceed 60 days after the date of the invoice.
- By way of derogation, a maximum period of 45 days from end of the month after the date of the invoice may be agreed between the parties, provided that this period is expressly stipulated by contract and that it does not constitute a blatant abuse with respect to the creditor (e.g. could be in fact up to 75 days after date of issuance).
The types of international contracts concluded with a French party can be:
(a) An international sales contract governed by French law (or to the national law of a country where CISG is in force), and which does not contractually exclude the Vienna Convention of 1980 on the International Sale of Goods (CISG)
In this case the parties may be freed from the domestic mandatory payment time limits, by virtue of the superiority of CISG over French domestic rules, as stated by public authorities,
(b) An international contract (sale, service or otherwise) concluded by a French party with a party established in the European Union and governed by the law of this other European State,
In this case the parties could be freed from the French domestic mandatory payment time limits, by invoking the rules of this member state law, in accordance with the EU directive 2011/7;
(c) Other international contracts not belonging to (a) or (b),
In these cases the parties might be subject to the French domestic mandatory payment maximum ceilings, if one considers that this rule is an OMR (but not that clearly stated).
Can a foreign party (a purchaser) agree with a French party on time limit of payment exceeding the French mandatory maximum ceilings (for instance 90 days)?
This provision is a public policy rule in domestic contracts. Failing to comply with the payment periods provided for in this article L. 441-10, any trader is liable to an administrative fine, up to a maximum amount of € 75,000 for a natural person and € 2,000,000 for a company. In the event of reiteration the maximum of the fine is raised to € 150,000 for a natural person and € 4,000,000 for a legal person.
There is no express legal special derogatory rule for international contracts (except one very limited to specific intra UE import / export trading). This being said, the French administration (that is to say the Government, the French General Competition and Consumer protection authority, “DGCCRF” or the Commission of examination of the commercial practices, “CEPC”) shows a certain embarrassment for the application of this rule in an international context because obviously it is not suitable for international trade (and is even counterproductive for French exporters).
International sales contract can set aside the maximum payment ceilings of article L441-10.I
Indeed, the Government and the CEPC have identified a legal basis authorizing French exporters to get rid of the maximum time limit imposed by the French commercial code: this is the UN Convention on the international sale of goods of 1980 (aka “CISG”) applying to contracts of supply of (standard or tailor-made) goods (but not services). They invoked the fact that CISG is an international treaty which is a higher standard than the internal standards of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code: it is therefore necessary to apply the CISG instead of article L441-10 of the Commercial Code.
- In the 2013 ministerial response, (supplemented by another one in 2014) the Ministry of Finance was very clear: « the default application of the CISG rules […] therefore already allows French traders to grant their foreign customers payment terms similar to those offered by their international competitors”.
- In its Statement of 2016 (n°16.12), the CEPC went a little further in the reasoning by specifying that CISG poses as a rule that payment occurs at the time of the delivery of the goods, except otherwise agreed by the parties (art. 58 & 59), but does not give a maximum ceiling. According to this Statement, it would therefore be possible to justify that the maximum limit of the Commercial Code be set aside.
The approach adopted by the Ministry of Finance and by the CEPC (which is a kind of emanation of this Ministry) seems to be a considerable breach in which French exporters and their foreign clients can plunge into. This breach is all the easier to use since CISG applies by default as soon as a sales contract is subject to French law (either by the express choice of the parties, or by application of the conflict of law rules by the judge subsequently seized). In other words, even if controls were to be carried out by the French administration on contracts which do not expressly target the CISG, it would be possible to invoke this “CISG open door”.
This ground seems also to be usable as soon as the international sale contract is governed by the national law of a foreign country … which has also ratified CISG (94 countries). But conversely, if the contract expressly excludes the application of CISG, the solution proposed by the administration will close.
For other international contracts not governed by CISG, is this article L441-10.I an overriding mandatory rule in the international context?
The answer is ambiguous. The issue at stake is: if art. L441-10 is an overriding mandatory rule (“OMR”), as such it would still be applied by a French Judge even if the contract is subject to foreign law.
Again the Government and the CEPC took a stance on this issue, but not that clear.
- In its 2013 ministerial response, the Ministry of Finance statement was against the OMR qualification when he referred to «foreign internal laws less restrictive than French law [that] already allows French traders to grant their foreign customers payment terms similar to those offered by their international competitors”.
- The CEPC made another Statement in 2016 (n°1) to know whether or not these ceilings are OMRs in international contracts. A distinction should be made as regards the localization of the foreign party:
– For intra-EU transactions, the CEPC put into perspective these maximum payment terms with the 2011/7 EU directive on the harmonization of payment terms which authorizes other European countries to have terms of payment exceeding 60 days (art 3 §5). Therefore article L441-10.I could not be seen as OMR because it would conflict with other provisions in force in other European countries, also respecting the EU directive which is a higher standard than the French Commercial Code.
– For non intra EU transactions, CEPC seems to consider article L441-10.I as an OMR but the reasoning was not really strong to say straightforwardly that it is per se an OMR.
To conclude on the here above, (except for contracts – sales excluded – concluded with a non-EU party, where the solution is not yet clear), foreign companies may negotiate terms of payment with their French suppliers which are longer than the maximum ceilings set by article L441 – 10, provided that it is not qualified as an abuse of negotiation (to be anticipated in specific circumstances or terms in the contract to show for instance counterparts, on a case by case basis) and having in mind that, with this respect, French case law is still under construction by French courts.
Summary: Since 12 July 2020, new rules apply for platform service providers and search engine operators – irrespective of whether they are established in the EU or not. The transition period has run out. This article provides checklists for platform service providers and search engine operators on how to adapt their services to the Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on the promotion of fairness and transparency for commercial users of online intermediation services – the P2B Regulation.
The P2B Regulation applies to platform service providers and search engine operators, wherever established, provided only two conditions are met:
(i) the commercial users (for online intermediation services) or the users with a company website (for online search engines) are established in the EU; and
(ii) the users offer their goods/services to consumers located in the EU for at least part of the transaction.
Accordingly, there is a need for adaption for:
- Online intermediation services, e.g. online marketplaces, app stores, hotel and other travel booking portals, social media, and
- Online search engines.
The P2B Regulation applies to platforms in the P2B2C business in the following constellation (i.e. pure B2B platforms are exempt):
Provider -> Business -> Consumer
The article follows up on the introduction to the P2B Regulation here and the detailed analysis of mediation as method of dispute resolution here.
Checklist how to adapt the general terms and conditions of platform services
Online intermediation services must adapt their general terms and conditions – defined as (i) conditions / provisions that regulate the contractual relationship between the provider of online intermediation services and their business users and (ii) are unilaterally determined by the provider of online intermediation services.
The checklist shows the new main requirements to be observed in the general terms and conditions (“GTC”):
- Draft them in plain and intelligible language (Article 3.1 a)
- Make them easily available at any time (also before conclusion of contract) (Article 3.1 b)
- Inform on reasons for suspension / termination (Article 3.1 c)
- Inform on additional sales channels or partner programs (Article 3.1 d)
- Inform on the effects of the GTC on the IP rights of users (Article 3.1 e)
- Inform on (any!) changes to the GTC on a durable medium, user has the right of termination (Article 3.2)
- Inform on main parameters and relative importance in the ranking (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or business secrets (Article 5.1, 5.3, 5.5)
- Inform on the type of any ancillary goods/services offered and any entitlement/condition that users offer their own goods/services (Article 6)
- Inform on possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of the provider or individual users towards other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
- No retroactive changes to the GTC (Article 8a)
- Inform on conditions under which users can terminate contract (Article 8b)
- Inform on available or non-available technical and contractual access to information that the Service maintains after contract termination (Article 8c)
- Inform on technical and contractual access or lack thereof for users to any data made available or generated by them or by consumers during the use of services (Article 9)
- Inform on reasons for possible restrictions on users to offer their goods/services elsewhere under other conditions (« best price clause »); reasons must also be made easily available to the public (Article 10)
- Inform on access to the internal complaint-handling system (Article 11.3)
- Indicate at least two mediators for any out-of-court settlement of disputes (Article 12)
These requirements – apart from the clear, understandable language of the GTC, their availability and the fundamental ineffectiveness of retroactive adjustments to the GTC – clearly go beyond what e.g. the already strict German law on general terms and conditions requires.
Checklist how to adapt the design of platform services and search engines
In addition, online intermediation services and online search engines must adapt their design and, among other things, introduce internal complaint-handling. The checklist shows the main design requirements for:
a) Online intermediation services
- Make identity of commercial user clearly visible (Article 3.5)
- State reasons for suspension / limitation / termination of services (Article 4.1, 4.2)
- Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3), see above
- Set an internal complaint handling system, with publicly available info, annual updates (Article 11, 4.3)
b) Online search engines
- Explain the ranking’s main parameters and their relative importance, public, easily available, always up to date (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or trade secrets (Article 5.2, 5.3, 5.5)
- If ranking changes or delistings occur due to notification by third parties: offer to inspect such notification (Article 5.4)
- Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
The European Commission will provide guidelines regarding the ranking rules in Article 5, as announced in the P2B Regulation – see the overview here. At the same time, providers of online intermediation services and online search engines shall draw up codes of conduct together with their users.
Practical Tips
- The Regulation significantly affects contractual freedom as it obliges platform services to adapt their general terms and conditions.
- The Regulation is to be enforced by « representative organisations » or associations and public bodies, with the EU Member States ensuring adequate and effective enforcement. The European Commission will monitor the impact of the Regulation in practice and evaluate it for the first time on 13.01.2022 (and every three years thereafter).
- The P2B Regulation may affect distribution relationships, in particular platforms as distribution intermediaries. Under German distribution law, platforms and other Internet intermediation services acting as authorised distributors may be entitled to a goodwill indemnity at termination (details here) if they disclose their distribution channels on the basis of corresponding platform general terms and conditions, as the Regulation does not require, but at least allows to do (see also: Rohrßen, ZVertriebsR 2019, 341, 344–346). In addition, there are numerous overlaps with antitrust, competition and data protection law.
Summary – According to French case law, an agent is subject to the protection of the commercial agent legal status and therefor is entitled to a termination indemnity only if it has the power to negotiate freely the price and terms of the sale contracts. ECJ ruled recently that such condition is not compliant with European law. However, principals could now consider other options to limit or exclude the termination indemnity.
It is an understatement to say that the ruling of the European court of justice of June 4, 2020 (n°C828/18, Trendsetteuse / DCA) was expected by both French agents and their principals.
The question asked to the ECJ
The question asked by the Paris Commercial Court on December 19, 2018 to the ECJ concerned the definition of the status of the commercial agent who could benefit from the EC Directive of December 18, 1986 and consequently of article L134 and seq. of Commercial Code.
The preliminary question consisted in submitting to the ECJ the definition adopted by the Court of Cassation and many Courts of Appeal, since 2008 : the benefit of the status of commercial agent was denied to any agent who does not have, according to the contract and de facto, the power to freely negotiate the price of sale contracts concluded, on behalf of the seller, with a buyer (this freedom of negotiation being also extend to other essential terms of the sale, such as delivery or payment terms).
The restriction ruled by French courts
This approach was criticized because, among other things, it was against the very nature of the economic and legal function of the commercial agent, who has to develop the principal’s activity while respecting its commercial policy, in a uniform manner and in strict compliance with the instructions given. As most of the agency contracts subject to French law expressly exclude the agent’s freedom to negotiate the prices or the main terms of the sales contracts, judges regularly requalified the contract from commercial agency contract into common interest mandate contract. However, this contract of common interest mandate is not governed by the provisions of Articles L 134 et seq. of the Commercial Code, many of which are of internal public order, but by the provisions of the Civil Code relating to the mandate which in general are not considered to be of public order.
The main consequence of this dichotomy of status lays in the possibility for the principal bound by a contract of common interest mandate to expressly set aside the compensation at the end of the contract, this clause being perfectly valid in such a contract, unlike to the commercial agent contract (see French Chapter to Practical Guide to International Commercial Agency Contracts).
The decision of the ECJ and its effect
The ECJ ruling of June 4, 2020 puts an end to this restrictive approach by French courts. It considers that Article 1 (2) of Directive of December 18, 1986 must be interpreted as meaning that agents must not necessarily have the power to modify the prices of the goods which they sell on behalf of a principal in order to be classified as a commercial agent.
The court reminds in particular that the European directive applies to any agent who is empowered either to negotiate or to negotiate and conclude sales contracts. The court added that the concept of negotiation cannot be understood in the restrictive lens adopted by French judges. The definition of the concept of « negotiation” must not only take into account the economic role expected from such intermediary (negotiation being very broad: i.e. dealing) but also preserve the objectives of the directive, mainly to ensure the protection of this type of intermediary.
In practice, principals will therefore no longer be able to hide behind a clause prohibiting the agent from freely negotiating the prices and terms of sales contracts to deny the status of commercial agent.
Alternative options to principals
What are the means now available to French or foreign manufacturers and traders to avoid paying compensation at the end of the agency contract?
- First of all, in case of international contracts, foreign principals will probably have more interest in submitting their contract to a foreign law (provided that it is no more protective than French law …). Although commercial agency rules are not deemed to be overriding mandatory rules by French courts (diverging from ECJ Ingmar and Unamar case law), to secure the choice not to be governed by French law, the contract should also better stipulate an exclusive jurisdiction clause to a foreign court or an arbitration clause (see French Chapter to Practical Guide to International Commercial Agency Contracts).
- it is also likely that principal will ask more often a remuneration for the contribution of its (preexisting) clients data base to the agent, the payment of this remuneration being deferred at the end of the contract … in order to compensate, if necessary, in whole or in part, with the compensation then due to the commercial agent.
- It is quite certain that agency contracts will stipulate more clearly and more comprehensively the duties of the agent that the principal considers to be essential and which violation could constitute a serious fault, excluding the right to an end-of-contract compensation. Although judges are free to assess the seriousness of a breach, they can nevertheless use the contractual provisions to identify what was important in the common intention of the parties.
- Some principals will also probably question the opportunity of continuing to use commercial agents, while in certain cases their expected economic function may be less a matter of commercial agency contract, but rather more of a promotional services contract. The distinction between these two contracts must, however, be strictly observed both in their text and in reality, and other consequences would need to be assessed, such as the regime of the prior notice (see our article on sudden termination of contracts)
Finally, the reasoning used by ECJ in this ruling (autonomous interpretation in the light of the context and aim of this directive) could possibly lead principals to question the French case-law rule consisting in granting, almost eyes shut, two years of gross commissions as a flat fee compensation, whereas article 134-12 of Commercial code does not fix the amount of this end-of-contract compensation but merely indicates that the actual damage suffered by the agent must be compensated ; so does article 17.3 of the 1986 EC directive. The question could then be asked whether such article 17.3 requires the agent to prove the damage actually suffered.
It is usually said that “conflict is not necessarily bad, abnormal, or dysfunctional; it is a fact of life[1]” I would perhaps add that quite often conflict is a suitable opportunity to evolve and to solve problems[2]. It is, in fact, a useful part of life[3] and particularly, should I add, of businesses. And conflicts not only arise at the end of the business relationship or to terminate it, but also during it and the parties remain willing to continue it.
The 2008 EU Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters states that «agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.»
Can, therefore, mediation be used not only as an alternative to court or arbitration when terminating distribution agreements, but also to re-organize them or to change contract conditions? Would it be useful to solve these conflicts? What could be the advantages?
In distribution/agency/franchise agreements, particularly for those lasting several years, parties can have neglected their obligations (for instance minimum sales targets not attained).
Sometimes they could have tolerated the situation although they remain not very happy with the other party’s performance because they are still doing acceptable business.
It could also happen that one of the parties wishes to restructure the entire distribution network (Can we change the distribution structure to an agency one?), but does not want to face a complete termination because there are other benefits in the relationship.
There may be just some changes to be introduced, or changes in the legal structures (A mere reseller transformed in distributor?), legal frameworks, legal conditions (Which one is the applicable law?), limitation of the scope of contract, territory…
And now, we face the Covid-19 crisis where everything is still more uncertain.
In some cases, it could happen that there is no written contract and the parties wish to draft it; in other cases, agreements could have been defectively drafted with incomplete, contradictory or no regulation at all (Was it an exclusive agreement?).
The contracts could be perfect for the situation imagined when signed several years ago but not anymore (What happen with online sales?) or circumstances, markets, services, products have changed and need to be reconsidered (mergers, change of directors…).
Sometimes, even more powerful parties have not the elements to oblige the weaker party to respect new terms, or they simply prefer not to impose their conditions, but to build up a more collaborative relationship for the future.
In all these cases, negotiation is the usual strategy parties follow: each one is focused in obtaining its own benefits with a clear idea of, for instance, which clause(s) should be modified or drafted.
Nevertheless, mediation could add some neutrality, and some space to a more efficient, structured and useful approach to the modification of the commercial relationship, particularly in distribution agreements where the collaboration (in the past, but also in the future if the parties wish so) is of paramount importance.
In most of these situations, personal emotional aspects could also be involved and make more difficult a neutral negotiation: a distributor that has been seen by the manufacturer as not performing very well and feels hurt, an agent that could consider a retirement, parties from different cultures that need to understand different ways of performing, franchisees that have been treated differently in the network and feel discriminated, etc.
In these circumstances and in other similar ones, where all persons involved, assisted by their respective lawyers, wish to continue the relationship although maybe in a different way, a sort of facilitative mediation can be a great help.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons:
- Mediation is a legal and organized procedure that could help the parties to increase their awareness of the necessity to redraft the agreement (or drafting for the first time if it was not already done).
- Parties can be heard more easily, negotiation is eased in the interest of both of them, encourages them to act more reasonably vis-à-vis the other side, restores relationship if necessary, deadlock can be easily broken and, if the circumstances advice so, parties can be engaged separately with the help of the mediator.
- Mediation can consider other elements different to the mere commercial or legal ones: emotions linked to performance, personal situations (retirement, succession, illness) or even differences in cultural approaches.
- It helps to find the real (possibly new or not shown) interests in the commercial relationship of the parties, focusing in developments, strategies, new proposals… The mere negotiation between the parties and they attorneys could not make appear these new interests and therefore be limited only to the discussion on the change of concrete obligations, clauses or situations. Mediation helps to go beyond.
- Mediation techniques can also help the parties to face their current situation, to take responsibility of their performance without focusing on blame or incompetence but on a constructive and future collaboration in new specific terms.[4]
- It can also avoid the increasing of the conflict into a more severe one (breaching) and in case mediation does not end with a new/redrafted agreement, the basis for a mediated termination can be established, if the parties wish so, instead of litigation.
- Mediation can conclude into a new agreement where the parties are more reassured, more comfortable with, and more willing to respect because they were involved in their construction with the assistance of their respective lawyers, and because all their interests (not only new drafted clauses) were considered.
- And, in any case, mediation does not affect the party’s collaborative position and does not reduce their possibility to use other alternatives, including litigation or arbitration to terminate the agreement or to oblige the other party to respect its legal obligations.
The use of mediation does not need the parties to have foreseen it in the agreement (although it could be easier if they did so) but they can use it freely at any time.
This said, a lawyer proposing mediation as a contractual clause or, in case it was not included in the agreement, as a procedure to face this sort of conflicts in distribution agreements, will be certainly seen by his/her client as problem-solving attorney looking for the client’s interests rather than a litigator pushing them to a more uncertain situation, with unknown costs and unforeseeable timeframe.
Parties in distribution agreements should have this possibility in mind and lawyers have the opportunity to actively participate in mediation from the first steps by recommending it in the initial agreement, during the process helping the clients to express their concerns and interests, and in the drafting of the final (new) agreement, representing the clients’ and as co-author of their success.
If you would like to hear more on the topic of mediation and distribution agreements you can check out the recording of our webinar on Mediation in International Conflicts
[1] Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass. Wiley, 2014.
[2] Mnookin, Robert H. Beyond Winning. Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes (p. 53). Harvard University Press, 2000.
[3] Fisher, R; Ury, W. Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. Random House.
[4] «Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward. Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them.» [Stone, Douglas. “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most”. Penguin Publishing Group]
The Milestone EU-Mercosur Trade Deal
- Distribution
- Investissements étrangers
-
Argentine -
Brésil -
Italie -
Uruguay
Germany – To which product category do Cannabidiol spray products belong?
- Distribution
- Droit pharmaceutique
-
Allemagne
Espagne 
Europe 
Mexique 
Écrire à Federico
France – Terms of payment in an international agreement
2 novembre 2020
-
France
- Entreprise
- Distribution
Wine Market in Mexico 2020-2021
The wine market in Mexico has shown an annual growth of approximately 8% during the past 5 years.
Importations have increased during the past 10 years, increasing its value in 88%.
Mexico has the second highest consumption growth rate worldwide according to the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV).
Current Trends in Mexico
Mexican wines accounted for 29% of Mexico’s consumption, while the remaining 71% corresponds to imported wines.
Wine consumption is primarily concentrated in 3 cities, Mexico City, Monterrey, and Guadalajara, with a potential increase in touristic locations.
Due to the health contingency generated as a result of the COVID19, on-line sales of the various supermarkets have increased in 300% during 2020.
Digitalization of processes represents a huge potential in terms of sales’ increase, and are expected to grow in a 40% yearly.
Consumers in Mexico are under 45 years old, having a pretty good balance in terms of gender (55% male and 45 female).
Types of wine consumed (71% red, 11% white, 9% sparkling, and 9% rose and others).
Comparison of wine consumption per capita
Following we share the following available information to illustrate differences between specific countries on current wine consumption per capita.
| Country | Consumption per capita |
| France | 49.5 lts |
| Italy | 43.0 lts |
| Austria | 29.4 lts |
| Spain | 27.8 lts |
| United States | 10.14 lts |
| China | 1.7 lts |
| Brazil | 1.6 lts |
| Mexico | 1.34 lts |
For more information you can visit our country guide on wine distribution in Mexico and watch the following video
Resale prices maintenance on the internet is unlawful while ban on resale on third-party platforms seems to be a new lawful option
In a nutshell
On December 3, 2020 the French Competition Authority (the FCA) :
- reiterated clearly the illegality of behavior aimed at imposing resale prices, especially in e-commerce and then condemned Dammann Frères, a French manufacturer of premium teas, to a € 226,000 fine for imposing minimum online resale prices maintenance on its distributors
- extended the right of ban on resale on third-party platforms from selective distribution of luxury products to quite common commercial relations, and then rejected the alleged illegality of this ban.
Between “recommended” and “imposed” resale prices: a dangerous game to play
Article L 442-6 of French Commercial Code prohibits « imposing, directly or indirectly, a minimum character at the resale price of a good, at the price of a service or at a commercial margin”. The FCA has ruled that, under the pretext of communicating recommended prices to its distributors, Dammann Frères has in fact imposed resale prices on them, failure to comply with these prices being punishable by retaliations (removal or reduction of the amount of discounts granted to them, delay in deliveries, removal of their contact details from the list of distributors presented on its website, disruption of supply, or even termination of commercial relations).
The supplier justified – vainly – this practice by its will to preserve the image and the positioning of its products but above all to avoid excessive price differences between resales by distributors on the internet and those carried out by network stores (where dealers had more latitude in setting prices).
The restriction of competition resulting from resale price maintenance can be obvious when contractual stipulations directly fix the price; but it can be deduced from a set of indices which is characterized according to a method strictly applied by the FCA :
- the supplier communicates its (recommended) resale prices to distributors,
- the latter apply them significantly and,
- a “price policing” system is put in place to prevent the price agreement from being questioned by deviant distributors. This mechanism results in price monitoring by the supplier (or even by other distributors, etc.),
- this leads to pressure, or even retaliation, to force distributors to align their prices upwards, such as delivery delays, supply disruptions, removal of discounts, etc.
There is a fine line between a price surveillance mechanism and a price constraint mechanism. This legal insecurity has been criticized and the European Commission could provide, on the occasion of the upcoming reform of the European block exemption regulation on vertical restraints, additional advice on the circumstances in which recommended resale prices should be qualified as imposed resale prices. The reform expected in 2022 could even go further by highlighting the pro-competitive effects of resale price maintenance.
Ban on resale on third-party platforms: a serious option to consider
With regard to the ban on the resale of its products on third-party platforms, openly imposed by Dammann Frères, the FCA took a rather liberal and innovative approach by applying the rules of the Coty case law (ruling of 6 12 2017, Coty Germany GmbH, C 230/16) to decide ultimately that there is no need to prosecute and therefore to fine. If this approach is confirmed later on by French courts, it will have a considerable impact on suppliers ‘policy who seek to control and restrict the terms of resale of their products on third-party platforms such as Amazon or e-Bay.
In this case, the FCA noted that the tea manufacturer’s market share was less than 30% and that this restriction did not constitute a hardcore restriction. Indeed, the FCA noted that this practice (i) did not prohibit distributors from selling products online nor from marketing themselves through third party websites (advertising and use of search engines) and (ii) did not constitute a restriction on the number of distributors, as the prosecution file did not evidence the number of customers of these platforms amongst the group of online buyers.
The FCA’s decision is therefore extends the Coty case law according to which the supplier of a selective distribution network for luxury products can prohibit the resale of its products on third-party platforms in order to preserve the image of its products (see our comments Here).
The FCA had already extended the Coty case law to technical products in a decision of 24 October 2018 (n ° 18-D-23), concerning the practices of the company Stihl, leader in mechanized garden equipment (mainly confirmed on appeal, Paris court of appeal 17 10 19), where the FCA, in a premonitory manner, stated: “it is important to specify that the analysis carried out by the Court of justice in the Coty ruling for the online marketing of luxury products seems likely to be extended to other types of products ”(see our comments Here).
The FCA is now going even further because, even though Dammann Frères teas are “high-end” positioned, they are neither luxury products nor even distributed through a selective distribution network.
Key takeaway
As part of its relations with its distributors, the supplier must ensure:
- not to stipulate any express minimum resale price clause;
- not to implement a system, nor tolerate practices, of commercial retaliation against distributors deviating from the minimum « recommended » prices (or even threaten them to do so);
- not to prohibit them from selling the products online or from advertising online;
- carefully examine the possibility of prohibiting them from reselling its products on third-party platforms.
International debt recovery is perhaps one of the most challenging issues in business. Companies are usually excited when starting their new international ventures, but when payments of distributors, clients, franchisees… stop, difficulties arise, particularly when they happen abroad. Recovery is most of the times complicated, causes expenses, nightmares and sometimes undertakings simply decide to give up. We herein provide some tips to consider in the prevention phase.
The following is a summary of the ideas which were discussed in a webinar organized by Legalmondo and the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso/Belluno in Italy in November 11, 2020.
What are the best practices to manage international receivables?
The first question regards the best practices companies could put into practice to avoid or, at least, to try to minimize the impact of lack of payment when international businesses are concerned.
The following main points were mentioned as worth considering at an early status of the negotiations and business development.
Verification of the identity of the company
Who is the company we are dealing with? It is important to check its existence, legal situation and capacity to carry on business. And also, the faculties or authorization of the person signing the type of contract. Is this the right authorized person? Has this person followed the legal requirements to do it? In particular, during this period of international pandemic, when the electronic signatures are used and when agreements are frequently signed with non-original signatures but only on pdf documents.
Request of financial information
What is the credit rating of the company? Seek to obtain official accounting information, either filed with the register of companies (when possible according to the local rules), or through private investigation research: tax regularity certificate to attest that the company is in compliance with applicable rules (in places when this is possible), comfort letters from shareholders or third parties (banks)… It is important to have a reasonable certitude about the capacity of that company to carry on the concrete business. And when possible, to do it on a regular basis.
Use the right contract
What is the correct type of contract for the commercial relationship? Seek advice from a lawyer specialized in the law of the country where the debt will be collected. This will be an essential element, for example, to know when the ownership of the acquired asset is legally transferred; when the parties have agreed to pay the invoices; the validity of the general conditions (or if they have to be drafted in the local language or in the language of the negotiations or what happens when they are contradictory: the seller’s and the purchaser’s); whether this is a distribution contract or a mere supply of products and the related obligations and consequences depending on the applicable law…
Write down your agreements
Avere le condizioni per iscritto non solo sul tipo di contratto ma anche sulle modalità, condizioni e ritardi di pagamento. Ed essere consapevoli del tipo di documenti necessari per la validità dell’accordo. Uno scambio di e-mail creerebbe un obbligo? Sarebbero necessari passaggi più formali per avere un contratto / obbligo valido (notaio, registrazione, firma separata di alcune condizioni)?
Follow your contract
If there is a contract in place, it is important to follow what has been signed or agreed, to ensure that these conditions are then respected. A different and sustained commercial practice could imply a tacit change the original written agreement.
Document all transactions
From the order by the client/distributor, its acceptance by the manufacturer, the transport document, linked to the receipt of goods, and until the final invoice, all paperwork should be clear and consistent. In case of lack of payment, all these documents might be necessary to prove the correct performance of the contract.
Has the debtor risen objections?
Also check your own defaults. It is quite frequent that the non-paying party justifies its decision on a previous breaching. If there is such previous alleged infringement by a supplier, for instance (related to the shipment of goods: delays, defective products, etc.), it will be probably more complicated to ask for the payment from the distributor or, at least, it will be required an additional procedure.
Be clear on the accrual of interests for late payments
In EU countries, legislation based on the 2011/7 Directive allows to combat late payment in commercial transactions with special interest rates: make sure this is mentioned in the contract, as non-EU based companies might not be aware of this, and the difference with the general legal interest can be substantial.
Seek guarantees for your credits
This obviously can vary depending on the type of contract and the relationship between the parties. A guarantee is advisable not only at the beginning, but also when the relationship lasts for several years. Sometimes, trust in your counterparty in the past makes more difficult to ask for additional guaranties and this could imply that late payments are not correctly managed.
Consider also additional guaranties on sold goods such as, when permitted by the law, retention of title. This will imply that the ownership remains in the vendor’s hand until the complete payment. In some cases, it is also possible to have additional guarantees when the retention of title can be registered at special public registries. These special conditions should also be verified locally in order to know their extent and to respect the way they shall be agreed, accepted, and documented.
Check out our webinar on debt collection
On November 11, 2020, I had the pleasure to participate to the webinar on International Debt Collection organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Treviso and Belluno and Legalmondo: we discuss the best practices and share practical information on debt collection in Spain, Germany, France, USA, China, Vietnam and Singapore.
You can watch the recording of the webinar here.
Legalmondo’s helpdesk on international credit collection
If you would like to know more about how to collect a debt overseas, you can find the reports of our experts from 20 countries here.
Under Vietnam’s presidency of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), after eight years of negotiations, the ten ASEAN member states (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) on 15 November 2020 signed a groundbreaking free trade agreement (FTA) with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
The ASEAN economic community is a free trade area kickstarted in 2015 among the above-mentioned ten members of the homonymous association, comprising an aggregate GDP of US$2.6 trillion and over 622 million people. ASEAN is China’s main trading partner, with the European Union now slipping into second place.
Unlike the EuroZone and the European Union, ASEAN does not have a single currency, nor common institutions, like the EU Commission, Parliament and Council. Similarly to what happens in the EU, though, a single member holds a rotational presidency.
Individual ASEAN Countries, like Vietnam and Singapore, have recently entered into free trade agreements with the European Union, whilst the entire ASEAN block had and still has in place the so-called “plus one” agreements with other regional Countries, namely The People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, The Republic of Korea, India, Japan and Australia and New Zealand together.
With the exception of India, all the other Countries with “plus one” agreements with ASEAN are now part of the RCEP, which will gradually overtake individual FTAs through the harmonisation of rules, especially those related to origin.
RCEP negotiations accelerated with the United States of America’s decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) upon the election of President Trump in 2016 (although it is worth noting that a large part of the US Democratic Party also opposed the TPP).
The TPP would have then been the largest free trade agreement ever and, as the name suggest, would have put together twelve nations on the Pacific Ocean, namely Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the USA. With the exclusion of the latter, the other eleven did indeed sign a similar agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
The CPTPP has however been ratified only by seven of its signatories and clearly lacks the largest economy and most significant partner of all. At the same time, both the aborted TPP and the CPTPP evidently exclude China.
The RCEP’s weight is therefore self evidently heavier, as it encompasses 2.1 billion people, with its signatories accounting for around 30% of the world’s GDP. And the door for India’s 1.4 billion people and US$2.6 trillion GDP remains open, the other members stated.
Like most FTAs, RCEP’s aim is to lower tariffs, open up trade in goods and services and promote investments. It also briefly covers intellectual property, but makes no mention of environmental protections and labour rights. Its signatories include very advanced economies, like Singapore’s, and quite poor ones, like Cambodia’s.
RCEP’s significance is at this very moment probably more symbolic than tangible. Whilst it is estimated that around 90% of tariffs will be abolished, this will only occur over a period of twenty years after entry into force, which will happen only after ratification. Furthermore, the service industry and even more notably agriculture do not represent the core of the agreement and therefore will still be subject to barriers and domestic rules and restrictions. Nonetheless, it is estimated that, even in these times of pandemic, the RCEP will contribute some US$40billion more, annually, to the world’s GDP, than the CPTPP does (US$186billion vis-à-vis US$147billion) for ten consecutive years.
Its immediate impact is geopolitical. Whilst signatories are not exactly best friends with each other (think of territorial disputes over the South China Sea, for instance), the message is clear:
- The majority of this part of the world has tackled the Covid-19 pandemic remarkably well, but cannot afford to open its borders to Europeans and Americans any time soon, lest the virus spread again. Therefore, it has to try and iron out internal tensions, if it wants to see some positive signs within its economies given by private trade, in addition to (not always good) deficit spending by the State. Most of these Countries do rely heavily on Western talents, tourists, goods, services and even strategic and military support, but they are realistic about the fact that, unless the much touted vaccine works really well really soon, the West will struggle with this coronavirus for many months, if not years.
- Multilateralism is key and isolationism is dangerous. The ASEAN bloc and the Australia-New Zealand duo work exactly in this peaceful and pro-business direction.
The ASEAN’s official website (https://asean.org/?static_post=rcep-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership) is very clear in this regard and states, in fact that:
RCEP will provide a framework aimed at lowering trade barriers and securing improved market access for goods and services for businesses in the region, through:
- Recognition to ASEAN Centrality in the emerging regional economic architecture and the interests of ASEAN’s FTA partners in enhancing economic integration and strengthening economic cooperation among the participating countries;
- Facilitation of trade and investment and enhanced transparency in trade and investment relations between the participating countries, as well as facilitation of SMEs’ engagements in global and regional supply chains; and
- Broaden and deepen ASEAN’s economic engagements with its FTA partners.
RCEP recognises the importance of being inclusive, especially to enable SMEs leverage on the agreement and cope with challenges arising from globalisation and trade liberalisation. SMEs (including micro-enterprises) make up more than 90% of business establishments across all RCEP participating countries and are important to every country’s endogenous development of their respective economy. At the same time, RCEP is committed to provide fair regional economic policies that mutually benefit both ASEAN and its FTA partners.
Still, the timing is right also for EU businesses. As mentioned, the EU has in place FTAs with Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, an Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan, and is negotiating separately with both Australia and New Zealand.
Generally, all these agreements create common rules for all the players involved, thus making it is simpler for companies to trade in different territories. With caveats on entry into force and rules of origin, Countries that have signed both an FTA with the EU and the RCEP, notably Singapore, a major English speaking hub, that ranks first in East Asia in the Rule of Law index (third in the region after New Zealand and Australia and twelfth worldwide: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/Singapore%20-%202020%20WJP%20Rule%20of%20Law%20Index%20Country%20Press%20Release.pdf), could bridge both regions and facilitate global trade even during these challenging times.
Under French law, terms of payment of contracts of sale or of services (food excluded) are strictly regulated (art. L441-10.I Commercial code) as follows:
- Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the standard time limit for settling the sums due may not exceed 30 days.
- Parties can agree on a time of payment which cannot exceed 60 days after the date of the invoice.
- By way of derogation, a maximum period of 45 days from end of the month after the date of the invoice may be agreed between the parties, provided that this period is expressly stipulated by contract and that it does not constitute a blatant abuse with respect to the creditor (e.g. could be in fact up to 75 days after date of issuance).
The types of international contracts concluded with a French party can be:
(a) An international sales contract governed by French law (or to the national law of a country where CISG is in force), and which does not contractually exclude the Vienna Convention of 1980 on the International Sale of Goods (CISG)
In this case the parties may be freed from the domestic mandatory payment time limits, by virtue of the superiority of CISG over French domestic rules, as stated by public authorities,
(b) An international contract (sale, service or otherwise) concluded by a French party with a party established in the European Union and governed by the law of this other European State,
In this case the parties could be freed from the French domestic mandatory payment time limits, by invoking the rules of this member state law, in accordance with the EU directive 2011/7;
(c) Other international contracts not belonging to (a) or (b),
In these cases the parties might be subject to the French domestic mandatory payment maximum ceilings, if one considers that this rule is an OMR (but not that clearly stated).
Can a foreign party (a purchaser) agree with a French party on time limit of payment exceeding the French mandatory maximum ceilings (for instance 90 days)?
This provision is a public policy rule in domestic contracts. Failing to comply with the payment periods provided for in this article L. 441-10, any trader is liable to an administrative fine, up to a maximum amount of € 75,000 for a natural person and € 2,000,000 for a company. In the event of reiteration the maximum of the fine is raised to € 150,000 for a natural person and € 4,000,000 for a legal person.
There is no express legal special derogatory rule for international contracts (except one very limited to specific intra UE import / export trading). This being said, the French administration (that is to say the Government, the French General Competition and Consumer protection authority, “DGCCRF” or the Commission of examination of the commercial practices, “CEPC”) shows a certain embarrassment for the application of this rule in an international context because obviously it is not suitable for international trade (and is even counterproductive for French exporters).
International sales contract can set aside the maximum payment ceilings of article L441-10.I
Indeed, the Government and the CEPC have identified a legal basis authorizing French exporters to get rid of the maximum time limit imposed by the French commercial code: this is the UN Convention on the international sale of goods of 1980 (aka “CISG”) applying to contracts of supply of (standard or tailor-made) goods (but not services). They invoked the fact that CISG is an international treaty which is a higher standard than the internal standards of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code: it is therefore necessary to apply the CISG instead of article L441-10 of the Commercial Code.
- In the 2013 ministerial response, (supplemented by another one in 2014) the Ministry of Finance was very clear: « the default application of the CISG rules […] therefore already allows French traders to grant their foreign customers payment terms similar to those offered by their international competitors”.
- In its Statement of 2016 (n°16.12), the CEPC went a little further in the reasoning by specifying that CISG poses as a rule that payment occurs at the time of the delivery of the goods, except otherwise agreed by the parties (art. 58 & 59), but does not give a maximum ceiling. According to this Statement, it would therefore be possible to justify that the maximum limit of the Commercial Code be set aside.
The approach adopted by the Ministry of Finance and by the CEPC (which is a kind of emanation of this Ministry) seems to be a considerable breach in which French exporters and their foreign clients can plunge into. This breach is all the easier to use since CISG applies by default as soon as a sales contract is subject to French law (either by the express choice of the parties, or by application of the conflict of law rules by the judge subsequently seized). In other words, even if controls were to be carried out by the French administration on contracts which do not expressly target the CISG, it would be possible to invoke this “CISG open door”.
This ground seems also to be usable as soon as the international sale contract is governed by the national law of a foreign country … which has also ratified CISG (94 countries). But conversely, if the contract expressly excludes the application of CISG, the solution proposed by the administration will close.
For other international contracts not governed by CISG, is this article L441-10.I an overriding mandatory rule in the international context?
The answer is ambiguous. The issue at stake is: if art. L441-10 is an overriding mandatory rule (“OMR”), as such it would still be applied by a French Judge even if the contract is subject to foreign law.
Again the Government and the CEPC took a stance on this issue, but not that clear.
- In its 2013 ministerial response, the Ministry of Finance statement was against the OMR qualification when he referred to «foreign internal laws less restrictive than French law [that] already allows French traders to grant their foreign customers payment terms similar to those offered by their international competitors”.
- The CEPC made another Statement in 2016 (n°1) to know whether or not these ceilings are OMRs in international contracts. A distinction should be made as regards the localization of the foreign party:
– For intra-EU transactions, the CEPC put into perspective these maximum payment terms with the 2011/7 EU directive on the harmonization of payment terms which authorizes other European countries to have terms of payment exceeding 60 days (art 3 §5). Therefore article L441-10.I could not be seen as OMR because it would conflict with other provisions in force in other European countries, also respecting the EU directive which is a higher standard than the French Commercial Code.
– For non intra EU transactions, CEPC seems to consider article L441-10.I as an OMR but the reasoning was not really strong to say straightforwardly that it is per se an OMR.
To conclude on the here above, (except for contracts – sales excluded – concluded with a non-EU party, where the solution is not yet clear), foreign companies may negotiate terms of payment with their French suppliers which are longer than the maximum ceilings set by article L441 – 10, provided that it is not qualified as an abuse of negotiation (to be anticipated in specific circumstances or terms in the contract to show for instance counterparts, on a case by case basis) and having in mind that, with this respect, French case law is still under construction by French courts.
Summary: Since 12 July 2020, new rules apply for platform service providers and search engine operators – irrespective of whether they are established in the EU or not. The transition period has run out. This article provides checklists for platform service providers and search engine operators on how to adapt their services to the Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on the promotion of fairness and transparency for commercial users of online intermediation services – the P2B Regulation.
The P2B Regulation applies to platform service providers and search engine operators, wherever established, provided only two conditions are met:
(i) the commercial users (for online intermediation services) or the users with a company website (for online search engines) are established in the EU; and
(ii) the users offer their goods/services to consumers located in the EU for at least part of the transaction.
Accordingly, there is a need for adaption for:
- Online intermediation services, e.g. online marketplaces, app stores, hotel and other travel booking portals, social media, and
- Online search engines.
The P2B Regulation applies to platforms in the P2B2C business in the following constellation (i.e. pure B2B platforms are exempt):
Provider -> Business -> Consumer
The article follows up on the introduction to the P2B Regulation here and the detailed analysis of mediation as method of dispute resolution here.
Checklist how to adapt the general terms and conditions of platform services
Online intermediation services must adapt their general terms and conditions – defined as (i) conditions / provisions that regulate the contractual relationship between the provider of online intermediation services and their business users and (ii) are unilaterally determined by the provider of online intermediation services.
The checklist shows the new main requirements to be observed in the general terms and conditions (“GTC”):
- Draft them in plain and intelligible language (Article 3.1 a)
- Make them easily available at any time (also before conclusion of contract) (Article 3.1 b)
- Inform on reasons for suspension / termination (Article 3.1 c)
- Inform on additional sales channels or partner programs (Article 3.1 d)
- Inform on the effects of the GTC on the IP rights of users (Article 3.1 e)
- Inform on (any!) changes to the GTC on a durable medium, user has the right of termination (Article 3.2)
- Inform on main parameters and relative importance in the ranking (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or business secrets (Article 5.1, 5.3, 5.5)
- Inform on the type of any ancillary goods/services offered and any entitlement/condition that users offer their own goods/services (Article 6)
- Inform on possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of the provider or individual users towards other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
- No retroactive changes to the GTC (Article 8a)
- Inform on conditions under which users can terminate contract (Article 8b)
- Inform on available or non-available technical and contractual access to information that the Service maintains after contract termination (Article 8c)
- Inform on technical and contractual access or lack thereof for users to any data made available or generated by them or by consumers during the use of services (Article 9)
- Inform on reasons for possible restrictions on users to offer their goods/services elsewhere under other conditions (« best price clause »); reasons must also be made easily available to the public (Article 10)
- Inform on access to the internal complaint-handling system (Article 11.3)
- Indicate at least two mediators for any out-of-court settlement of disputes (Article 12)
These requirements – apart from the clear, understandable language of the GTC, their availability and the fundamental ineffectiveness of retroactive adjustments to the GTC – clearly go beyond what e.g. the already strict German law on general terms and conditions requires.
Checklist how to adapt the design of platform services and search engines
In addition, online intermediation services and online search engines must adapt their design and, among other things, introduce internal complaint-handling. The checklist shows the main design requirements for:
a) Online intermediation services
- Make identity of commercial user clearly visible (Article 3.5)
- State reasons for suspension / limitation / termination of services (Article 4.1, 4.2)
- Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3), see above
- Set an internal complaint handling system, with publicly available info, annual updates (Article 11, 4.3)
b) Online search engines
- Explain the ranking’s main parameters and their relative importance, public, easily available, always up to date (incl. possible influence of remuneration), without algorithms or trade secrets (Article 5.2, 5.3, 5.5)
- If ranking changes or delistings occur due to notification by third parties: offer to inspect such notification (Article 5.4)
- Explain possible differentiated treatment of goods / services of providers themselves or users in relation to other users (Article 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
The European Commission will provide guidelines regarding the ranking rules in Article 5, as announced in the P2B Regulation – see the overview here. At the same time, providers of online intermediation services and online search engines shall draw up codes of conduct together with their users.
Practical Tips
- The Regulation significantly affects contractual freedom as it obliges platform services to adapt their general terms and conditions.
- The Regulation is to be enforced by « representative organisations » or associations and public bodies, with the EU Member States ensuring adequate and effective enforcement. The European Commission will monitor the impact of the Regulation in practice and evaluate it for the first time on 13.01.2022 (and every three years thereafter).
- The P2B Regulation may affect distribution relationships, in particular platforms as distribution intermediaries. Under German distribution law, platforms and other Internet intermediation services acting as authorised distributors may be entitled to a goodwill indemnity at termination (details here) if they disclose their distribution channels on the basis of corresponding platform general terms and conditions, as the Regulation does not require, but at least allows to do (see also: Rohrßen, ZVertriebsR 2019, 341, 344–346). In addition, there are numerous overlaps with antitrust, competition and data protection law.
Summary – According to French case law, an agent is subject to the protection of the commercial agent legal status and therefor is entitled to a termination indemnity only if it has the power to negotiate freely the price and terms of the sale contracts. ECJ ruled recently that such condition is not compliant with European law. However, principals could now consider other options to limit or exclude the termination indemnity.
It is an understatement to say that the ruling of the European court of justice of June 4, 2020 (n°C828/18, Trendsetteuse / DCA) was expected by both French agents and their principals.
The question asked to the ECJ
The question asked by the Paris Commercial Court on December 19, 2018 to the ECJ concerned the definition of the status of the commercial agent who could benefit from the EC Directive of December 18, 1986 and consequently of article L134 and seq. of Commercial Code.
The preliminary question consisted in submitting to the ECJ the definition adopted by the Court of Cassation and many Courts of Appeal, since 2008 : the benefit of the status of commercial agent was denied to any agent who does not have, according to the contract and de facto, the power to freely negotiate the price of sale contracts concluded, on behalf of the seller, with a buyer (this freedom of negotiation being also extend to other essential terms of the sale, such as delivery or payment terms).
The restriction ruled by French courts
This approach was criticized because, among other things, it was against the very nature of the economic and legal function of the commercial agent, who has to develop the principal’s activity while respecting its commercial policy, in a uniform manner and in strict compliance with the instructions given. As most of the agency contracts subject to French law expressly exclude the agent’s freedom to negotiate the prices or the main terms of the sales contracts, judges regularly requalified the contract from commercial agency contract into common interest mandate contract. However, this contract of common interest mandate is not governed by the provisions of Articles L 134 et seq. of the Commercial Code, many of which are of internal public order, but by the provisions of the Civil Code relating to the mandate which in general are not considered to be of public order.
The main consequence of this dichotomy of status lays in the possibility for the principal bound by a contract of common interest mandate to expressly set aside the compensation at the end of the contract, this clause being perfectly valid in such a contract, unlike to the commercial agent contract (see French Chapter to Practical Guide to International Commercial Agency Contracts).
The decision of the ECJ and its effect
The ECJ ruling of June 4, 2020 puts an end to this restrictive approach by French courts. It considers that Article 1 (2) of Directive of December 18, 1986 must be interpreted as meaning that agents must not necessarily have the power to modify the prices of the goods which they sell on behalf of a principal in order to be classified as a commercial agent.
The court reminds in particular that the European directive applies to any agent who is empowered either to negotiate or to negotiate and conclude sales contracts. The court added that the concept of negotiation cannot be understood in the restrictive lens adopted by French judges. The definition of the concept of « negotiation” must not only take into account the economic role expected from such intermediary (negotiation being very broad: i.e. dealing) but also preserve the objectives of the directive, mainly to ensure the protection of this type of intermediary.
In practice, principals will therefore no longer be able to hide behind a clause prohibiting the agent from freely negotiating the prices and terms of sales contracts to deny the status of commercial agent.
Alternative options to principals
What are the means now available to French or foreign manufacturers and traders to avoid paying compensation at the end of the agency contract?
- First of all, in case of international contracts, foreign principals will probably have more interest in submitting their contract to a foreign law (provided that it is no more protective than French law …). Although commercial agency rules are not deemed to be overriding mandatory rules by French courts (diverging from ECJ Ingmar and Unamar case law), to secure the choice not to be governed by French law, the contract should also better stipulate an exclusive jurisdiction clause to a foreign court or an arbitration clause (see French Chapter to Practical Guide to International Commercial Agency Contracts).
- it is also likely that principal will ask more often a remuneration for the contribution of its (preexisting) clients data base to the agent, the payment of this remuneration being deferred at the end of the contract … in order to compensate, if necessary, in whole or in part, with the compensation then due to the commercial agent.
- It is quite certain that agency contracts will stipulate more clearly and more comprehensively the duties of the agent that the principal considers to be essential and which violation could constitute a serious fault, excluding the right to an end-of-contract compensation. Although judges are free to assess the seriousness of a breach, they can nevertheless use the contractual provisions to identify what was important in the common intention of the parties.
- Some principals will also probably question the opportunity of continuing to use commercial agents, while in certain cases their expected economic function may be less a matter of commercial agency contract, but rather more of a promotional services contract. The distinction between these two contracts must, however, be strictly observed both in their text and in reality, and other consequences would need to be assessed, such as the regime of the prior notice (see our article on sudden termination of contracts)
Finally, the reasoning used by ECJ in this ruling (autonomous interpretation in the light of the context and aim of this directive) could possibly lead principals to question the French case-law rule consisting in granting, almost eyes shut, two years of gross commissions as a flat fee compensation, whereas article 134-12 of Commercial code does not fix the amount of this end-of-contract compensation but merely indicates that the actual damage suffered by the agent must be compensated ; so does article 17.3 of the 1986 EC directive. The question could then be asked whether such article 17.3 requires the agent to prove the damage actually suffered.
It is usually said that “conflict is not necessarily bad, abnormal, or dysfunctional; it is a fact of life[1]” I would perhaps add that quite often conflict is a suitable opportunity to evolve and to solve problems[2]. It is, in fact, a useful part of life[3] and particularly, should I add, of businesses. And conflicts not only arise at the end of the business relationship or to terminate it, but also during it and the parties remain willing to continue it.
The 2008 EU Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters states that «agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.»
Can, therefore, mediation be used not only as an alternative to court or arbitration when terminating distribution agreements, but also to re-organize them or to change contract conditions? Would it be useful to solve these conflicts? What could be the advantages?
In distribution/agency/franchise agreements, particularly for those lasting several years, parties can have neglected their obligations (for instance minimum sales targets not attained).
Sometimes they could have tolerated the situation although they remain not very happy with the other party’s performance because they are still doing acceptable business.
It could also happen that one of the parties wishes to restructure the entire distribution network (Can we change the distribution structure to an agency one?), but does not want to face a complete termination because there are other benefits in the relationship.
There may be just some changes to be introduced, or changes in the legal structures (A mere reseller transformed in distributor?), legal frameworks, legal conditions (Which one is the applicable law?), limitation of the scope of contract, territory…
And now, we face the Covid-19 crisis where everything is still more uncertain.
In some cases, it could happen that there is no written contract and the parties wish to draft it; in other cases, agreements could have been defectively drafted with incomplete, contradictory or no regulation at all (Was it an exclusive agreement?).
The contracts could be perfect for the situation imagined when signed several years ago but not anymore (What happen with online sales?) or circumstances, markets, services, products have changed and need to be reconsidered (mergers, change of directors…).
Sometimes, even more powerful parties have not the elements to oblige the weaker party to respect new terms, or they simply prefer not to impose their conditions, but to build up a more collaborative relationship for the future.
In all these cases, negotiation is the usual strategy parties follow: each one is focused in obtaining its own benefits with a clear idea of, for instance, which clause(s) should be modified or drafted.
Nevertheless, mediation could add some neutrality, and some space to a more efficient, structured and useful approach to the modification of the commercial relationship, particularly in distribution agreements where the collaboration (in the past, but also in the future if the parties wish so) is of paramount importance.
In most of these situations, personal emotional aspects could also be involved and make more difficult a neutral negotiation: a distributor that has been seen by the manufacturer as not performing very well and feels hurt, an agent that could consider a retirement, parties from different cultures that need to understand different ways of performing, franchisees that have been treated differently in the network and feel discriminated, etc.
In these circumstances and in other similar ones, where all persons involved, assisted by their respective lawyers, wish to continue the relationship although maybe in a different way, a sort of facilitative mediation can be a great help.
These are, in my opinion, the main reasons:
- Mediation is a legal and organized procedure that could help the parties to increase their awareness of the necessity to redraft the agreement (or drafting for the first time if it was not already done).
- Parties can be heard more easily, negotiation is eased in the interest of both of them, encourages them to act more reasonably vis-à-vis the other side, restores relationship if necessary, deadlock can be easily broken and, if the circumstances advice so, parties can be engaged separately with the help of the mediator.
- Mediation can consider other elements different to the mere commercial or legal ones: emotions linked to performance, personal situations (retirement, succession, illness) or even differences in cultural approaches.
- It helps to find the real (possibly new or not shown) interests in the commercial relationship of the parties, focusing in developments, strategies, new proposals… The mere negotiation between the parties and they attorneys could not make appear these new interests and therefore be limited only to the discussion on the change of concrete obligations, clauses or situations. Mediation helps to go beyond.
- Mediation techniques can also help the parties to face their current situation, to take responsibility of their performance without focusing on blame or incompetence but on a constructive and future collaboration in new specific terms.[4]
- It can also avoid the increasing of the conflict into a more severe one (breaching) and in case mediation does not end with a new/redrafted agreement, the basis for a mediated termination can be established, if the parties wish so, instead of litigation.
- Mediation can conclude into a new agreement where the parties are more reassured, more comfortable with, and more willing to respect because they were involved in their construction with the assistance of their respective lawyers, and because all their interests (not only new drafted clauses) were considered.
- And, in any case, mediation does not affect the party’s collaborative position and does not reduce their possibility to use other alternatives, including litigation or arbitration to terminate the agreement or to oblige the other party to respect its legal obligations.
The use of mediation does not need the parties to have foreseen it in the agreement (although it could be easier if they did so) but they can use it freely at any time.
This said, a lawyer proposing mediation as a contractual clause or, in case it was not included in the agreement, as a procedure to face this sort of conflicts in distribution agreements, will be certainly seen by his/her client as problem-solving attorney looking for the client’s interests rather than a litigator pushing them to a more uncertain situation, with unknown costs and unforeseeable timeframe.
Parties in distribution agreements should have this possibility in mind and lawyers have the opportunity to actively participate in mediation from the first steps by recommending it in the initial agreement, during the process helping the clients to express their concerns and interests, and in the drafting of the final (new) agreement, representing the clients’ and as co-author of their success.
If you would like to hear more on the topic of mediation and distribution agreements you can check out the recording of our webinar on Mediation in International Conflicts
[1] Moore, Christopher W. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass. Wiley, 2014.
[2] Mnookin, Robert H. Beyond Winning. Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes (p. 53). Harvard University Press, 2000.
[3] Fisher, R; Ury, W. Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in. Random House.
[4] «Talking about blame distracts us from exploring why things went wrong and how we might correct them going forward. Focusing instead on understanding the contribution system allows us to learn about the real causes of the problem, and to work on correcting them.» [Stone, Douglas. “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most”. Penguin Publishing Group]
