News

Cécile de Lagarde discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Computer Associates UK Ltd v Software Incubator Ltd

  • April 27, 2018
  • By Hunters Law

Software does not amount to goods for the purposes of the Commercial Agents Regulations ruled the Court of Appeal in Computer Associates UK Ltd v Software Incubator Ltd[1]

The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (1993 Regulations) gives protection to commercial agents in their relationship with their principals and provide them in particular with the right to financial compensation when their agency agreements come to an end.

A commercial agent, The Software Incubator Limited (TSI), had been appointed to promote software produced by Computer Associates UK (CA). When CA terminated the agency agreement, arguing that TSI was in breach of its obligations, TSI brought a claim in the High Court against CA and asserting its rights under the 1993 Regulations. TSI claimed that it was entitled to compensation for the damages it had suffered as a result of the termination of its agreement with CA.

The 1993 Regulations only protect agents who, on behalf of their principal, sell or purchase goods as opposed to services. The question was therefore whether software supplied electronically amounted to “goods” under the 1993 Regulations. As there is no definition of “goods” within the 1993 Regulations themselves, the Court of Appeal went on to examine case law and European legislation in relation to the sale of goods in order to make a decision.

The Court of Appeal held that software supplied electronically and not on a tangible medium did not constitute “goods” under the 1993 Regulations. Although the Court recognised that the tangible/intangible distinction in relation to software was illogical and lead to an undesirable result from the perspective of commercial agents, it held that reform in light of technological advances had to come from Parliament as opposed to from the judiciary.  The Court also justified its decision by stating that, as the 1993 Regulations are aimed at commercial parties rather than consumers, commercial parties are not so much in “need of protection that the judiciary should adopt a completely different approach to interpreting “goods” than that established by precedent”.

This decision, which reversed the decision of the High Court in 2016, which decided that software supplied electronically did amount to “goods” for the purposes of the 1993 Regulations, will not be welcome from the perspective of commercial agents.[2]

For queries in relation to commercial matters, please contact the partner at Hunters with who you normally deal or a member of our Business Services team.

Cécile de Lagarde

[1] Computer Associates UK Ltd v Software Incubator Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 518

Related News

Jul 22, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Constance Tait examine the impact on trademark litigation and provide 10 tips on navigating the post-Brexit era in Managing IP
Jul 16, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Anastassia Dimmek examine the growing threat of zombie firms in Lawyer Monthly
Jul 07, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine a report suggesting that firms with targeted support for ethnic minority workers see benefits
Jun 28, 2021
Richard Baxter discusses UK-EU Data Protection and how adequacy decisions avoid imminent disruption to data flows
Jun 23, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine the recent Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd case in the High Court
Jun 22, 2021
Anastassia Dimmek discussed the key challenges of protecting clients’ healthy businesses from zombie firms in a webinar hosted by Advoselect
Jun 18, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait discuss the looming annual returns deadline for employee share schemes
May 18, 2021
Hunters hosted the Withdrawal and The Trade Marks Act 1994 webinar
Mar 17, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber drivers entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay and pension following the Supreme Court decision in The Sunday Times Driving, The Times and the Daily Mail
Feb 19, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber losing a landmark Supreme Court battle in the Evening Standard and the Financial Times

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)