ASG Law

Tag: Exclusive Distributorship

  • Third-Party Interference: Protecting Exclusive Distributorship Rights in the Philippines

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a corporation can be held liable for damages if it interferes with the contractual obligations of another company, particularly in exclusive distributorship agreements. This decision underscores the importance of respecting contractual rights and the potential liabilities for third parties who induce a breach of contract. It serves as a warning to businesses that they cannot knowingly disrupt valid agreements to gain a competitive advantage without facing legal consequences, reinforcing the sanctity of contracts and fair business practices in the Philippines. The Court emphasized that acting in bad faith to undermine existing contractual relationships opens the door to liability, even for those not directly party to the original agreement.

    When Ambition Undermines Exclusivity: Who Pays When a New Distributor Violates an Existing Contract?

    The case of Excellent Essentials International Corporation v. Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc. revolves around a dispute over exclusive distributorship rights for E. Excel products in the Philippines. Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc. (Excel Philippines) originally held the exclusive rights, but a corporate shake-up at E. Excel International, Inc. led to the revocation of this agreement and the appointment of Excellent Essentials International Corporation (Excellent Essentials) as the new distributor. Excel Philippines argued that Excellent Essentials tortiously interfered with its existing contract, leading to significant financial losses.

    The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Excellent Essentials could be held liable for damages for interfering with the exclusive distributorship agreement between Excel International and Excel Philippines. Excellent Essentials contended that it acted in good faith, relying on the decisions of Excel International’s president at the time. They also argued that an earlier Court of Appeals (CA) ruling suggested Excel Philippines had not suffered any actual damages.

    However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that findings of fact and opinion made during preliminary injunction proceedings are merely interlocutory. These findings are not conclusively binding on the main case. The Court clarified that the CA’s earlier decision only pertained to whether a preliminary injunction was warranted at that stage, not whether Excel Philippines had ultimately suffered damages.

    The Supreme Court then delved into the principle of **tortious interference**, codified in Article 1314 of the Civil Code, which states that “any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.” The Court reiterated the elements of tortious interference, as laid out in So Ping Bun v. CA:

    (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract; and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse.

    In this case, the Court found that a valid contract existed between Excel International and Bright Vision Consultants, Ltd., which led to the creation of Excel Philippines as the exclusive distributor. This agreement stipulated that Excel Philippines’ exclusive distributorship was irrevocable without mutual consent. The Court then examined whether Excellent Essentials had knowledge of this existing contract. Evidence revealed that individuals associated with Excellent Essentials were previously affiliated with Excel Philippines, suggesting they were aware of the exclusive distributorship agreement. Further, the timing of Excellent Essentials’ incorporation and its subsequent appointment as the new distributor raised suspicion of a deliberate plan to circumvent Excel Philippines’ rights.

    The Court underscored that these actions constituted malice and bad faith. Even though the president’s actions were later overturned, the Supreme Court made it clear that Excellent Essentials played an important role in disrupting Excel Philippines. The Supreme Court stated:

    It does not escape this Court’s attention the stealthy maneuverings that [Excellent Essentials’] incorporators did while still working for [Excel Philippines]. As narrated above, they anticipated the revocation of [Excel exclusive right contract and the award to [Excellent Essentials] of the same gratuity while the latter has yet to be organized. With this expectation comes not a foreknowledge of divine origin but a conspiracy to rig existing contractual obligations so they could swaddle themselves with the benefits that go along with such maneuverings.

    In its analysis, the Supreme Court cited Yu v. CA, where it recognized that the right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement and to profit from it are proprietary rights that deserve protection. The court found that the very existence of Excellent Essentials became the cause for Stewart to unlawfully revoke Excel Philippines’ right to distribute. A claim of good faith was dismissed because Excellent Essentials knew of the current exclusive distributorship before scheming for its own benefit.

    Having established that Excellent Essentials acted with malice and without legal justification, the Supreme Court found them liable for tortious interference. However, the Court disagreed with the CA’s award of temperate damages, which are awarded when pecuniary loss is proven but the exact amount is uncertain. The Court determined that Excel Philippines’ claim for damages, based on projected sales, lacked sufficient factual basis. As such, the Court deleted the award for temperate damages and instead awarded nominal damages.

    The Supreme Court explained that under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages serve to vindicate a violated right, even in the absence of demonstrable financial loss.

    In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that third parties cannot interfere with valid contracts without facing potential liability. Companies must respect existing contractual relationships and refrain from actions that undermine the rights of others. The case serves as a cautionary tale against opportunistic business practices and underscores the importance of ethical conduct in the marketplace.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Excellent Essentials could be held liable for tortious interference for disrupting the exclusive distributorship agreement between Excel International and Excel Philippines. The Supreme Court examined whether Excellent Essentials knowingly and unjustifiably interfered with this contract, causing damages to Excel Philippines.
    What is tortious interference? Tortious interference occurs when a third party induces someone to violate their contract, leading to damages for the other contracting party. It requires the existence of a valid contract, knowledge of the contract by the third party, and unjustified interference by that third party.
    What are nominal damages? Nominal damages are awarded when a legal right is violated, but no substantial injury or actual damages are proven. They serve to recognize and vindicate the plaintiff’s right, even in the absence of financial loss.
    Why were temperate damages not awarded in this case? Temperate damages were not awarded because Excel Philippines’ claim for damages was based on projected sales figures, which the Court found to be an unreliable measure of actual pecuniary loss. There was no sufficient evidence to prove that Excellent Essentials was the sole cause for the decline in Excel Philippines’ sales volume.
    What was the significance of the prior CA ruling on preliminary injunction? The prior CA ruling on the preliminary injunction was not binding on the main case because findings made during preliminary injunction proceedings are interlocutory in nature. The CA’s decision only addressed whether an injunction was warranted at that stage, not whether Excel Philippines had ultimately suffered damages.
    How did the actions of Excellent Essentials constitute bad faith? Excellent Essentials’ actions were deemed in bad faith due to the “stealthy maneuverings” of its incorporators, who were aware of the existing exclusive distributorship agreement. The timing of Excellent Essentials’ incorporation and appointment as the new distributor suggested a deliberate plan to circumvent Excel Philippines’ rights.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for businesses? This ruling emphasizes the importance of respecting existing contractual relationships and the potential liabilities for third parties who interfere with those relationships. Businesses should conduct thorough due diligence and avoid actions that could be construed as inducing a breach of contract.
    What was the final outcome of the case? The Supreme Court denied Excellent Essentials’ petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. The award for temperate damages was deleted and, in lieu thereof, Excellent Essentials was ordered to pay Excel Philippines nominal damages of P50,000,000.00. The total amount adjudged also earns an interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the balance and interest due from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

    The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that businesses must operate within the bounds of ethical and legal conduct. Deliberately disrupting existing contractual relationships to gain a competitive edge will likely result in liability for damages. This case reinforces the principle of respecting the sanctity of contracts and promotes fair business practices in the Philippines.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Excellent Essentials International Corporation v. Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 192797, April 18, 2018

  • Tortious Interference: Protecting Distributorship Rights in Philippine Commerce

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines has affirmed the principle that third parties who induce a breach of contract can be held liable for damages. This ruling protects exclusive distributorship agreements, ensuring that businesses operating under such agreements can seek recourse when their contractual rights are violated due to the interference of others. The Court underscored that such interference, especially when driven by bad faith or malicious intent, warrants the imposition of damages to compensate the aggrieved party.

    Betrayal and Catamarans: When Business Deals Sink Distributorship Dreams

    The case of Allan C. Go v. Mortimer F. Cordero revolves around a dispute over an exclusive distributorship agreement for high-speed catamaran vessels. Cordero, the exclusive distributor for Aluminium Fast Ferries Australia (AFFA), brokered a deal between AFFA and Allan Go’s ACG Express Liner for the purchase of two vessels. However, Go later bypassed Cordero and dealt directly with AFFA to purchase a second vessel, leading to Cordero’s distributorship being terminated and his commissions unpaid. The central legal question is whether Go’s actions constituted tortious interference, making him liable for damages to Cordero.

    The facts revealed that Cordero was instrumental in establishing the initial deal, even accompanying Go and his representatives to Australia to oversee the construction of the first vessel. Despite this, Go, along with his lawyers, Landicho and Tecson, secretly negotiated with AFFA for the second vessel. These actions not only deprived Cordero of his commission but also led to the termination of his exclusive distributorship. This situation prompted Cordero to file a lawsuit, alleging that Go and the others conspired to violate his contractual rights.

    The legal framework for this case rests on **Article 1314 of the Civil Code**, which explicitly addresses tortious interference. This provision states:

    Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

    The Supreme Court, in analyzing this provision, highlighted three essential elements for establishing tortious interference: the existence of a valid contract, the third person’s knowledge of the contract, and the third person’s unjustified interference. In Cordero’s case, the existence of a valid exclusive distributorship agreement and Go’s awareness of it were not in dispute. The critical issue was whether Go’s interference was justified.

    The Court referred to its previous ruling in So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, which clarified that interference may be justified if the defendant’s motive is to benefit themselves, but not if their sole motive is to cause harm. However, the Court emphasized that even when acting in self-interest, parties must not act with malice or deliberate intent to harm the other contracting party. The element of malice becomes critical in determining liability.

    In Go’s defense, it was argued that he was merely seeking a better price for the second vessel and that there was no conclusive evidence of a second purchase. The Supreme Court, however, found that Go’s actions, particularly his secret negotiations and the cessation of communication with Cordero, demonstrated bad faith. Moreover, the Court noted that Go’s representatives continued to accept commissions from Cordero even as they were undermining his position, further supporting the finding of malice.

    The Court emphasized that the right to perform an exclusive distributorship agreement is a proprietary right, and any interference with that right is actionable. It cited Yu v. Court of Appeals, reinforcing that exclusive distributorship agreements must be protected against wrongful interference by third parties.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of solidary liability. It noted that under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, obligations arising from tort are solidary. This means that each tortfeasor is individually liable for the entire damage caused. The Court also cited Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corporation, which affirmed that obligations arising from tort are, by their nature, always solidary. This ensures that the injured party can recover damages from any or all of the parties involved in the tortious act.

    In this case, the Court found that Go, Landicho, and Tecson acted in concert to undermine Cordero’s distributorship, making them solidarily liable for the damages suffered by Cordero. The Court rejected the argument that they could not be held liable for more than AFFA/Robinson could be held liable, reiterating that the nature of tortious interference allows for such liability.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of damages. It affirmed the award of actual damages for the unpaid commission on the first vessel and upheld the award of moral and exemplary damages, albeit reducing the amounts. The Court found that Go’s actions were contrary to **Article 19 of the Civil Code**, which requires everyone to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. This article, along with Articles 20 and 21, provides a basis for awarding damages when a right is exercised in bad faith or with intent to injure another.

    Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

    The Supreme Court underscored that Cordero was practically excluded from the transaction. While there was no explicit prohibition on negotiating for a lower price in the second purchase, Go, Robinson, Tecson and Landicho, clearly connived not only in ensuring that Cordero would have no participation in the contract for sale of the second SEACAT 25, but also that Cordero would not be paid the balance of his commission from the sale of the first SEACAT 25, despite their knowledge that it was commission already earned by and due to Cordero.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Allan Go tortiously interfered with Mortimer Cordero’s exclusive distributorship agreement, making him liable for damages. This involved assessing if Go’s actions were justified or driven by malice.
    What is tortious interference? Tortious interference occurs when a third party induces another party to breach a contract, causing damages to the other contracting party. It requires a valid contract, knowledge of the contract by the third party, and unjustified interference.
    What is Article 1314 of the Civil Code? Article 1314 of the Civil Code states that any third person who induces another to violate their contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. This provision is the basis for claims of tortious interference in the Philippines.
    What are the elements of tortious interference? The elements are: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of a contract; and (3) interference of the third person is without legal justification. These elements must be proven to establish liability.
    What is the significance of malice in tortious interference? Malice is a crucial factor. Interference may be justified if the defendant’s primary motive is to benefit themselves, but not if their sole motive is to cause harm. Acts done with malice or bad faith are generally not justified.
    What does solidary liability mean in this context? Solidary liability means that each tortfeasor is individually liable for the entire amount of damages. The injured party can recover the full amount from any or all of the parties involved.
    How does Article 19 of the Civil Code apply? Article 19 requires everyone to act with justice, honesty, and good faith. Violations of this article, especially when done with intent to injure, can lead to an award of damages under Articles 20 and 21.
    What types of damages can be awarded in tortious interference cases? Damages can include actual damages (like unpaid commissions), moral damages (for mental anguish and suffering), exemplary damages (to deter similar conduct), and attorney’s fees. The specific amounts depend on the circumstances of the case.

    In conclusion, this case reinforces the protection afforded to exclusive distributorship agreements under Philippine law. It clarifies that third parties who interfere with these agreements in bad faith can be held liable for damages, ensuring that businesses can operate with confidence and protect their contractual rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Allan C. Go v. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164747, May 4, 2010

  • Navigating Exclusive Distributorships: Key Legal Insights for Philippine Businesses

    Breach of Exclusive Distributorship: Why Clear Agreements and Actions Matter

    TLDR: This case highlights the importance of respecting exclusive distributorship agreements. Companies must understand that violating these agreements, even without formal termination, can lead to significant damages, including storage fees and moral damages for the distributor. Conversely, businesses need to be aware that failing to specifically deny counterclaims in court can result in those claims being deemed admitted, regardless of their actual merit.

    G.R. No. 109269, September 15, 2000

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario where your business secures an exclusive deal, only to find the other party undermining your rights by dealing directly with your clients. This isn’t just bad business practice; it’s a potential legal battle waiting to happen. The Philippine Supreme Court case of Bayer Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Casimiro Bompat (G.R. No. 109269) perfectly illustrates the legal ramifications of breaching an exclusive distributorship agreement. Bayer, a multinational pharmaceutical company, found itself facing not only a collection suit counterclaim but also significant damages for violating its agreement with its exclusive distributor, Casimiro Bompat. The core issue revolved around whether Bayer improperly bypassed Bompat by directly dealing with Bompat’s government clients, and the consequences that followed.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTORSHIPS AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

    In the Philippines, distributorship agreements are governed by contract law. An exclusive distributorship grants a distributor the sole right to sell a supplier’s products within a specific territory or to a particular customer segment. This exclusivity is a crucial element, forming the basis of the distributor’s business expectations and investments. Breaching this exclusivity can expose the supplier to legal liability for damages.

    The case also delves into the concept of compulsory counterclaims in Philippine civil procedure. Rule 6, Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines a compulsory counterclaim as one that “arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” The significance of classifying a counterclaim as compulsory is procedural: it does not require the payment of separate docket fees to be heard by the court. This is because it is considered intertwined with the original claim. Permissive counterclaims, on the other hand, are independent claims and require docket fees.

    The determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory hinges on the “logical relationship” test. As the Supreme Court reiterated, quoting jurisprudence, “The phrase ‘logical relationship’ is given meaning by the purpose of the rule which it was disputed to implement. Thus, a counterclaim is logically related to the opposing party’s claim where, as already stated, separate trials of each of their respective claims would involve a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the courts. Where multiple claims involve many of the same factual issues, or where they are offshoots of the same basic controversy between the parties, fairness and considerations of convenience and of economy require that the counter claimant be permitted to maintain his cause of action.” This principle is crucial for efficient litigation and preventing multiplicity of suits.

    Another important aspect highlighted is the consequence of a general denial in pleadings. Under the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 8, Sections 10 and 11, material allegations in a complaint or counterclaim, if not specifically denied, are deemed admitted. A general denial, simply denying “the allegations” without specifying which ones are untrue and stating the basis for denial, is insufficient and can lead to adverse consequences.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: BAYER VS. BOMPAT – A DISTRIBUTOR’S FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHTS

    The story begins with Bayer Philippines appointing Casimiro Bompat (Kaiser Enterprises) as its exclusive distributor for Bayluscide 70% W.P., a chemical product, primarily for government accounts. Their agreement, initiated in December 1977, was automatically renewable annually. Bompat incurred a debt of P741,250.00 from Bayer for products obtained on credit. Unable to fully pay, Bompat executed a promissory note for P117,500.00 in January 1982, agreeing to a 14% compounded monthly interest and acceleration of the debt upon default.

    Bayer filed a collection suit against Bompat in March 1984 when Bompat’s outstanding balance remained unpaid despite demands. Bompat admitted the debt but raised counterclaims, alleging that Bayer breached their exclusive distributorship agreement. He claimed that Bayer, after delivering 4,000 kilos of Bayluscide to him in 1979, withdrew these chemicals in 1980 without cause, and then directly dealt with government entities, his exclusive clients, while the distributorship agreement was still in effect. Bompat sought damages for breach of contract, storage fees for the withdrawn chemicals, and reimbursement for promotion expenses.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Bompat on his counterclaims, finding Bayer’s general denial insufficient and deeming Bompat’s allegations admitted. The RTC awarded Bompat storage fees, actual damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees, offsetting a portion against Bompat’s debt to Bayer. Bayer appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision with modifications, reducing the actual damages but upholding the storage fees and moral damages.

    Dissatisfied, Bayer elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising several errors, including:

    1. The Court of Appeals erred in computing interest only from the date of the complaint.
    2. The Court of Appeals erred in not awarding attorney’s fees to Bayer as stipulated in the promissory note.
    3. The Court of Appeals erred in treating Bompat’s counterclaim as compulsory, thus not requiring docket fees.
    4. The Court of Appeals erred in granting Bompat’s counterclaims.

    The Supreme Court, however, sided with the lower courts on the crucial points. It upheld the CA’s computation of interest, finding no error in starting it from judicial demand. It also affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees for Bayer because Bayer failed to raise this as an error in its appeal to the CA. Crucially, the Supreme Court agreed that Bompat’s counterclaims were indeed compulsory, stemming directly from the distributorship agreement that was the basis of Bayer’s collection suit.

    Regarding the breach of contract, the Supreme Court emphasized Bayer’s failure to refute Bompat’s evidence. The Court highlighted that:

    “Private respondent’s evidence has adequately proven that petitioner committed a breach of the exclusive distributorship agreement by directly dealing with the private respondent’s customer. We accordingly find no cogent justification to disturb the ruling of respondent court that private respondent is entitled to the award of moral damages…We also affirm the finding of the trial court that private respondent has shown that it is entitled to the payment of storage fees.”

    However, the Supreme Court modified the CA decision by deleting the award of P50,000.00 for promotional expenses, finding insufficient documentary evidence to support this claim. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision with this modification, underscoring the validity of Bompat’s counterclaims for breach of exclusive distributorship and storage fees.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR BUSINESS INTERESTS

    The Bayer v. Bompat case offers several critical lessons for businesses in the Philippines, both suppliers and distributors:

    • Respect Exclusive Agreements: Exclusive distributorships are legally binding contracts. Suppliers must honor the exclusivity granted and refrain from circumventing their distributors by directly engaging with their exclusive clients. Breaching these agreements can lead to significant financial repercussions, including damages and legal costs.
    • Clear Communication and Termination: If a supplier wishes to terminate or modify an exclusive distributorship, it must follow the terms of the agreement and communicate changes clearly and formally to the distributor. Simply withdrawing products or dealing directly with clients while the agreement is technically in force is insufficient and constitutes a breach.
    • Specific Denials in Pleadings: When responding to complaints or counterclaims in court, general denials are insufficient. Parties must specifically address each material allegation and clearly state their defenses. Failure to do so can result in allegations being deemed admitted, weakening their legal position significantly.
    • Document Everything: Distributors should meticulously document all expenses, efforts, and damages incurred due to a breach of contract. While moral damages can be awarded based on testimony, actual or compensatory damages require solid proof, such as receipts and corroborating evidence.
    • Understand Compulsory Counterclaims: Businesses initiating legal action should anticipate potential compulsory counterclaims. These counterclaims, arising from the same transaction, are intrinsically linked to the original claim and can be pursued without additional docket fees, making them a cost-effective avenue for redress.

    Key Lessons:

    • Uphold the sanctity of contracts, especially exclusive distributorships.
    • Communicate clearly and formally when modifying or terminating agreements.
    • Ensure pleadings in court contain specific denials of material allegations.
    • Document all business transactions and potential damages meticulously.
    • Understand the concept of compulsory counterclaims in litigation.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What constitutes a breach of an exclusive distributorship agreement?

    A: A breach occurs when the supplier acts in a way that violates the distributor’s exclusive rights. This includes directly selling to customers within the distributor’s exclusive territory or customer segment, appointing other distributors in the exclusive area, or undermining the distributor’s ability to effectively sell the products as agreed.

    Q: What are moral damages and when can they be awarded in breach of contract cases?

    A: Moral damages are awarded for mental anguish, emotional distress, and similar non-pecuniary losses. In breach of contract cases, moral damages can be awarded if the breach is proven to be attended by bad faith, malice, or fraud, or if it results in social humiliation or similar injury. In this case, the embarrassment Bompat suffered due to Bayer’s actions contributed to the award of moral damages.

    Q: What is the difference between a compulsory and a permissive counterclaim?

    A: A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s claim. It must be raised in the same lawsuit or it is barred. A permissive counterclaim is any other claim a defendant has against the plaintiff, not necessarily related to the plaintiff’s claim. Permissive counterclaims require payment of docket fees and can be filed separately.

    Q: Why was Bayer ordered to pay storage fees in this case?

    A: Bayer was ordered to pay storage fees because it delivered a large quantity of chemicals to Bompat’s residence, requiring him to build a bodega for storage. When Bayer later withdrew these chemicals without terminating the distributorship agreement, the court deemed it equitable for Bayer to compensate Bompat for the storage provided, preventing unjust enrichment.

    Q: What should businesses do to avoid disputes in distributorship agreements?

    A: Businesses should ensure their distributorship agreements are clearly written, explicitly defining the scope of exclusivity, termination clauses, and responsibilities of each party. Open communication, good faith dealings, and adherence to contractual terms are crucial in preventing disputes. Seeking legal counsel when drafting and implementing these agreements is highly recommended.

    ASG Law specializes in Contract Law and Commercial Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.