The Agency Contract and the Bank Agency: Commentary on the Judgement of the Supreme Court of 25 May 2018 (I CSK 478/17, Legalis no. 1785293)

Abstract

The commentary questions identification of the obligation to manage the bank station, when the bank agent is the tenant of the bank office and the employer. The commentary also questions the duty of a bank agent to establish and manage the agent’s corporation and states that stipulation of the obligation to pay for know-how by the agent obliged to use of the principal’s know-how mainly in the principal’s interest during performing the intermediation is contradictory to the nature of the bank agency contract. The gloss upholds the view that the entire range of services covered by outsourcing within the meaning of Article 6a of the Banking Law goes beyond the scope the agency contract within the meaning of Article 758 § 1 of the Civil Code. The commentary questions the application of the rule of fair profit to the agent’s remuneration and also questions the view that the immediate reduction of the credit offer made by the bank who is the principal in order to protect his interests may be regarded as the breach of the principal’s obligation to act loyally. The commentary criticises the view of the Supreme Court that the specification of the instances justifying the termination of the agency contract is the condition for the effectiveness of the stipulation of the right to terminate contained in the agency agreement concluded for a fixed term. As a rule the commentary accepts the right of the parties of the agency agreement to stipulate that the term fixed in the agency agreement is only the maximum term for which this agreement has been concluded. The commentary points to doubts as to view that value of the unincurred agent’s costs which would be related to performing the order justifying the increasing the amount of an indemnity.