An agency service contract dispute emerged between a leading sports equipment brand management company (followed as “brand management company” or “defendant”) and a sports brand agency (followed as “agent”or “applicant”), the agency submitted arbitration application to CIETAC on January 26th 2016 and laid brand management company as the defendant and claimed a huge commission (covering the whole contract duration and one more year after the expiration date) and interests damage.
The main debates laid in two aspects between parties: contract character and deal model. The agency stressed that the contract is a brokerage contract in nature, the agency is entitled to receive commission as long as the deals are achieved with its assistance. Meanwhile, the agency claimed the deal models include futures deals and claimed the “one-year-later” commission from the defendant
Faced with the claims and audition requirements, JunHe’s dispute resolution team analyzed a large number of deal data and conducted analyzing opinions and designed respective arbitration strategies. Through consistently collecting and exploring the evidence, JunHe proved that the huge commissions are mostly originated from orders out of the contract and conducted counterclaims based on the deal documents, contract character and other supportive evidence. Finally, the tribunal rejected the commission claims and interest claims of the applicant, the judgement went far beyond the client’s expectation and won high commendation from the client’s Finland head office, which laid a good foundation for further cooperation between JunHe and the client.
This is a typical case among agency services contract disputes and the results the JunHe team gained has provided significant guidance to the brand management company in its future agency service contract signing. The JunHe dispute resolution team’s targeted strategy, high-quality legal services and positive results beyond expectations were highly recommended by the clients.