Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The construction of an agency and distribution agreement (ADA) can be crucial when deciding whether the termination of such agreement precludes the agent from collecting money due to the principal. Peter Head, barrister at 11 Stone buildings, considers the decision in Bailey v Angove.
Bailey and another v Angove’s Pty Ltd  EWCA Civ 215,  All ER (D) 82 (Mar)
D&D company acted as the sole agent and distributor of the respondent company, Angove. D&D went into administration and Angove terminated its ADA with D&D. After the ADA had been terminated, third party customers paid D&D the purchase price of goods sold and delivered during D&D’s agency and distributorship (the sum). The judge ordered that the sum should be paid to Angove in its entirety and the appellant liquidators of D&D appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, decided that, under the terms of the ADA, D&D had remained entitled to collect what had been due from customers in respect of goods ordered and delivered prior to termination and the money had therefore been payable under the ADA to the liquidators.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was concerned with two key issues:
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234