The issue often arises when a dealer claims that payment of commissions by its principal for direct sales made by another distributor (or retailer) to its customers in the exclusive territory is proof of an exclusive distributorship. Case law in Puerto Rico is mixed on the issue. One First Circuit case holds that payment of commissions does not legally modify the terms of a clearly non-exclusive distributor agreement. Problems arise (for the supplier) when a clearly non-exclusive distributorship agreement has expired or there is no written agreement at all. In those circumstances, as in a reported federal district court case, the payment of commissions may create a genuine triable issue of fact on the existence of exclusivity. In their commercial dealings parties may contractually agree that payment of commissions is the quid pro quo or consideration for exclusive distribution rights. But, absent a contract, it is by no means settled that payment of commissions is per se proof of exclusivity.
Picking up where I left off in my prior blog that common law authorities may be persuasive when interpreting Law 75, at least in the State of Ohio, an appellate court (but reversed on other grounds) held that payment of commissions is a waiver of a breach of contract claim. In Miller v. Wikel Manufacturing Company, 545 N.E. 2d 76 (Ohio 1989), a jury found that a principal had impaired and terminated an exclusive distributorship agreement and awarded damages of $1.5 million for breach of contract.
On the relevant issue, the appellate court reversed the verdict and reasoned:
“It was proven at trial that the Millers [the distributor] had been aware of direct sales by Wikel Mfg. [the principal] in Michigan since 1971 and that the Millers had accepted commissions on these sales. Such sales were in contravention of the exclusive distributorship contract. The court of appeals reasoned that the Millers’ election to continue as Wikel Mfg’s distributor, notwithstanding Wikel Mfg’s actions, constituted a waiver of their rights under the agreement, and thus, that they were estopped from asserting a breach of contract claim on this basis.” See 1998 WL 62980 Ohio App. 1988, citing, Section 683 of Williston on Contracts (“….where a contract is breached in the course of its performance, the injured party has a choice presented to him of continuing the contract or refusing to go on.”), reversed on other grounds, 545 N.E. 2d 76.
These facts depict a scenario of “willful blindness”, “deliberate acquiescence”, or “laches” by a distributor who has knowledge of the breach for years but elects to continue the relationship receiving benefits under the contract in exchange for additional consideration consisting of commissions. Unless the dealer protects itself with contractual language to ensure that the commissions do not novate (or affirmatively ratify) existing exclusive rights, there is a risk of waiver or estoppel from accepting commissions in the face of a clearly exclusive contract.
Right or wrong, this is all dicta as the appellate court’s holding never became law of the case. The Supreme Court of Ohio did not reach the waiver issue on the merits for it reversed the appellate court, reinstated the verdict, and held that waiver and estoppel are affirmative defenses which were waived in the case. Thus, the appellate court erred in raising the issue sua sponte.
