The 1993 Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations (CARs) were introduced to bring UK law into compliance with the European Union’s Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC). However, their hasty implementation and fundamental misalignment with UK legal principles have made them a source of persistent difficulty for businesses, particularly for those seeking to part ways with underperforming book sales agents.
A Poorly Drafted and Rushed Implementation
The UK government opposed the EU directive and was reluctant to incorporate it into national law. As a result, the CARs were implemented in a rushed and largely unmodified form, copied directly from the EU directive. This “cut-and-paste” approach failed to consider the specificities of UK contract law and business practices, leading to complex numerous ambiguities and interpretation challenges.
Ambiguities in Scope and Definitions
One of the most significant flaws of the CARs is the vague definition of a “commercial agent.” There has been extensive litigation over whether certain types of agents fall within the scope of the regulations, particularly those operating in commodity markets or handling limited aspects of sales representation. The regulations provide little guidance on the distinction between “primary” and “secondary” activities of agents, leaving businesses and legal professionals to navigate a complex and often unpredictable landscape.
Dual Compensation Models and Financial Burden
The CARs impose a dual system for termination payments, derived from two conflicting legal traditions:
Indemnity Model (based on German law): This caps compensation at a maximum of one year’s average commission over the previous five years.
Compensation Model (based on French law): This has no fixed cap and can result in much larger payouts, depending on the value of the agency business.
The result is inconsistency and legal uncertainty. Courts have often leaned towards the compensation model, leading to significant liabilities for businesses terminating agency agreements. In practice, this has made it financially unviable to contest claims, forcing many businesses - regardless of whether they were in the right - to settle or pay up to five years' commission to avoid costly litigation.
Inflexibility and Undue Burdens on Businesses
The regulations impose rigid requirements that limit the ability of businesses to tailor agency agreements to their specific needs. These include:
Mandatory minimum notice periods for terminating agreements, even when an agent has performed poorly.
Automatic compensation rights upon termination, regardless of whether the agent was actually instrumental in generating business.
Restrictions on contractual freedom, making it difficult to negotiate bespoke terms that better reflect the realities of different industries.
These inflexible provisions often discourage businesses from engaging commercial agents altogether, preferring alternative sales models to avoid the regulatory risks.
Misalignment with UK Legal Principles
The CARs contradict the UK’s longstanding emphasis on contractual freedom in business-to-business relationships. Pre-1993 common law principles provided a more balanced approach, allowing parties to negotiate fair terms without the prescriptive obligations imposed by the directive. The introduction of the CARs disrupted this balance, replacing pragmatic commercial flexibility with bureaucratic rigidity.
The Hidden Costs of Legal Skirmishes
For many business owners, becoming embroiled in disputes under the CARs is an exhausting and costly distraction from their core operations. The financial burden of termination payments is compounded by the legal fees and administrative time spent navigating disputes. The lack of clarity in the regulations means that even clear-cut cases can become protracted battles, draining resources and stifling innovation.
Personal experience confirms this frustration. During a period of transitioning from one UK sales team to another, the constraints of the CARs forced an unnecessary payout to underperforming agents - simply because the legal costs of fighting the case were too high. Worse still, the replacement team failed to deliver results, and internal conflicts between sales representatives led to further disruptions. In hindsight, managing UK sales and warehousing caused me more headaches than running the rest of the business combined. The time spent dealing with these regulatory entanglements directly impacted creative output, highlighting how legal bureaucracy can stifle business growth and innovation.
A Need for Reform
The 1993 Commercial Agents Regulations were introduced with the intention of protecting agents, but in practice, they have created uncertainty, inefficiency, and an undue burden on businesses. The rigid obligations, poorly defined scope, and costly termination provisions have made agency relationships more contentious and financially risky. Given the UK's exit from the EU, there is now an opportunity to reform or repeal these outdated regulations and return to a legal framework that prioritizes contractual freedom, fairness, and commercial efficiency.
Without reform, businesses will continue to face unnecessary legal battles and financial penalties, discouraging the use of commercial agents altogether. A modernised approach- aligned with the realities of today’s business environment—is long overdue.
Comments