If we examine the dealer’s burden of proof in the automotive sector more closely, as is the case at hand, we arrive at the general conclusion that it would be very difficult for the dealer to prove the “effective” increase in clientele for the licensing company, since, most likely, it is the reputation of the licensing automaker/company itself that determines whether or not the consumer decides to purchase a car of this specific make in the dealership where the sale takes place.
The Supreme Court likewise upheld that, unlike an agency agreement where compensation for clientele is imperative, contractual clauses in dealer contracts which exclude any compensation for clientele to the dealer in the event of unilateral termination by the grantor are valid.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that compensation can only be claimed in those cases where the unilateral termination of the dealer contract results in unjustified damages to the dealer and/or unfair enrichment to the grantor pursuant Art. 1101 of the Civil Code.
For further information, please contact Sabina Llauger Boix: firstname.lastname@example.org