In one of the most recent cases regarding commercial agency agreements in Colombia, the Superior Court of Bogotá clarified that economic risk does not, in itself, exclude the existence of a commercial agency. However, it is a determining factor when accompanied by operational independence, freedom to set prices, and absence of instructions from the contractor.
This article will discuss decision No. 11001 3103 045 2021 00461 01 by the Superior Court of Bogotá issued on May 12, 20251.1
Background of the case
MTBASE S.A.S. filed a lawsuit against SAP Colombia S.A.S., claiming that there was a commercial agency agreement between the two companies with an uninterrupted, continuous, and indefinite term from June 2, 1993, to December 31, 2019.
The plaintiff argued that the essential elements of an agency agreement were present, asserting that it had been entrusted with the promotion and market positioning of the product, in addition to carrying out technical functions associated with the commercialization of software licenses.
First Instance Judgment
The 45th Civil Court of the Bogotá Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the primary purpose of the contracts was the distribution of software for resale, which could include support and complementary services offered directly by the plaintiff. The Court also noted that no contractual clause imposed agency duties on the plaintiff to act on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of positioning or growing the business in the software market, nor was there evidence that the plaintiff engaged in market development activities for the defendant’s benefit.
Appeal
The plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment, arguing that, since the commercial agency agreement involved artistic works or creations (software), the legal transaction should have been registered with the National Copyright Office—evidence that the plaintiff never operated as a legal entity separate from the defendant. Furthermore, the technical support provided by the plaintiff to customers was delivered following training by the defendant, suggesting that “there was no distinction between the plaintiff and the defendant from the perspective of customers and the market”.
Superior Court of Bogota’s Analysis
The Superior Court of Bogotá analyzed the evidence and found that, contrary to what the appellant suggests, the case file shows that the contractual behavior of the parties, which lasted for 26 years, is consistent with the nature and content of a distribution contract.
The Court concluded that it was established that the plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in purchasing for resale, thereby undermining both the promotion of another’s business and the receipt of remuneration—elements intrinsic to a commercial agency contract. This was evidenced by sales invoices showing that customers acquired the software licenses directly from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant did not pay commissions to the appellant; rather, its remuneration derived from the difference between the purchase price of the software licenses and the higher resale price charged to the consumers.
The decision stated:
““It is not without reason that case law has emphasized that, ‘although the essential elements of agency have been identified as the permanence or stability of the assignment, the independence of the agent, and the intermediary functions aimed at acquiring, retaining, expanding, or recovering customers for the principal, much of the doctrine agrees that it is the promotion of the conclusion of business—where the principal assumes the economic risk—that constitutes the typical content distinguishing the agency contract from other contractual arrangements, as the other elements may also be present in different types of agreements (…).’ Acting in the name and on behalf of a third party has been highlighted by this Chamber’s case law as the most decisive characteristic in determining whether the contract binding on the parties constitutes a commercial agency agreement. (CSJ, judgment of September 30, 2015, file 2004 00027)”.
The Court also emphasized that there is no written document or supporting evidence to substantiate the plaintiff’s claims. On the contrary, there is ample documentary evidence—including purchase invoices—supporting the first-instance judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff primarily acted by purchasing products from SAP COLOMBIA S.A.S. for resale to third parties.
Furthermore, as previously noted, the evidence shows that MTBASE S.A.S. remained silent for over two decades, thereby implicitly accepting the performance of services characteristic of a software license distribution agreement, rather than those of a commercial agency. This conduct runs contrary to fundamental legal principles, including the prohibition against acting in contradiction to one’s own prior conduct (venire contra factum proprium).
Conclusion
The Court concluded that no commercial agency agreement existed between the parties, as the plaintiff acted as an independent distributor, received no remuneration from the defendant since Its profit was derived not from a commission, but from the margin between the purchase and resale prices, and bore all business risks. Moreover, the plaintiff purchased licenses directly from the defendant and resold them under its own name, without any mandate of representation or direction from the defendant.
The decision clearly emphasized that economic risk is not incidental but an essential element, as its continuous presence precludes the existence of an agency relationship.
Gabriela Mancero-Bucheli, IDI Country Expert for agency and distribution in Colombia
Andrea Sánchez Gallardo
- The plaintiff filed an appeal in cassation against this decision, and the case is currently pending a ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice. ↩︎
