With sentence no. 30065 of 19.11.2019, the Court of Cassation reiterated its position on the subject of the exclusive duty of agents pursuant to art. 1743 of the Italian Civil Code, according to which the latter cannot take on the task of dealing in the same area and for the same branch of the business of several competing companies, causing, in the event of violation of this prohibition, a hijacking of clientele (also potential only) of the principal towards competing companies.
In the present case, the Supreme Court confirmed the second degree sentence, which, in reform of the first case and in accordance with a consolidated position of the Cassation itself, stated that "the notion of competition should not necessarily be identified in relation to the production or marketing of identical products by several companies, as it is sufficient for these to apply to a clientele, even if only potentially common, so that one can be damaged by the entry and expansion of the other in the market, in which they both operate or may predictably operate."
The Court of Appeal, in particular, considered the violation by the agent of the obligation of exclusivity, since the promotional sales activity in favour of other companies had concerned goods intended for the construction of building products , the sector in which the principal was operating, and therefore destined, even if only potentially, to a common clientele, without being able to detect the typological diversity of materials.
The Court of Cassation reiterated that competition occurs not only when there is an absolute identity of products, but also when the agent's activity is aimed at customers who, in a certain territorial and temporal context, could opt for the purchase of the products of both of the sellers. (EB)
