Abstract
One of the most important consequences of the agency contract (commercial agency contract) in terms of its termination is the equalization demand of the agent. After termination of agency contract, the agent may request a reasonable equalization demand if he/she has brought the principal new customers or has significantly increased the volume of business with existing customers. Thus, the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the business with these customers. Equalization demand of the agent (commercial agent) is regulated on an equitable basis. As of this nature, equalization demand of the agent carries a counter-execution nature for the customer portfolio (goodwill) which the agent acquired and the principal may benefit on its own, depending on the termination of the agency contract that establishes continuing obligation. In this respect, the equalization demand does not have the characteristics of compensation theoretically. However, compared to similar provisions, Turkish Commercial Code Article 122 has some differences and it may also need to be amended to clarify some issues. Objectives of this study are to determine the legal nature, conditions, and calculation of the equalization demand. Furthermore, scope of application of this claim includes other contractual relations giving similar monopoly rights unless it is contrary with fairness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Akın, İ. (2013). Acentenin Denkleştirme Hakkı ve Alman Hukukundaki Yeni Gelişmeler [Indemnity claim of agent and recent developments in German law]. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2013(3), 613–641.
Ansay, T., & Önay, I. (2014). In T. Ansay & E. C. Schneider (Eds.), Introduction to Turkish business law (pp. 47–58). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluver Law.
Arkan, S. (2017). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. Ankara: Bankacılık Entitüsü Yayınları.
Ayan, Ö. (2008). Acentenin Denkleştirme Talep Etme Hakkı. [The right of the agent to request for equalization]. İstanbul: Seçkin.
Badak Aybar, Z. (2013). 6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda Denkleştirme İstemi [Equalization Demand of the Agent in Turkish Commercial Code, Nr. 6102]. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2013(2), 167–201.
Bahtiyar, M. (2017). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. İstanbul: Beta.
Bozer, A., & Göle, C. (2015). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. Ankara: Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü.
Bozkurt, T. (2017). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. Ankara: Legem.
Busche, J. (2015). In H. Oetker (Ed.), Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch. [Commentary on German commercial code]. Münih: C.H. Beck.
Emde, R. (2009). Vertriebsrecht, Kommentierung zu §§ 84 bis 92c HGB. [Distribution law, commenting on German commercial code §§ 84-92c]. Berlin: De Gruyter.
European Council Directive. (1986 [2018]). 86/653/EEC directive. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31986L0653
Federal Assembly of Switzerland. (2017). Swiss code of obligations, English Translation. Retrieved May 02, 2018, from https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classifiedcompilation/19110009/201704010000/220.pdf
German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. (2016). German commercial code English translation. Retrieved May 02, 2018, from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_hgb/englisch_hgb.html
Hopt, K. J. (2003). Handelsvertreterrecht. [The law of commercial agents]. Münich: C.H. Beck.
Hopt, K. J. (2018). Handelgesetzbuch. [Commercial code]. Münich: C.H. Beck.
İmregün, O. (2001). Kara Ticaret Hukuku Dersleri. [Commercial law courses]. İstanbul: Filiz Kitapevi.
Karamanlıoğlu, A. (2017). Acentenin Hastalık veya Yaşlılık Gerekçesiyle Acentelik Sözleşmesini Feshetmesi Halinde Denkleştirme İsteminin Durumu, Acente ve Acentelik Sözleşmesi [Status of commercial agent’s indemnity after termination of the agency contract on grounds of age, infirmity or illness]. Istanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Prof. Dr. iur. Merih Kemal Omağ’a Armağan, 2017(2), 141–172.
Karasu, R. (2008). Türk Ticaret Kanunu ve Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısına Göre Acentanın Denkleştirme Talebi [an Agent’s claim for compensation according to the Turkish commercial code and the draft Turkish commercial code]. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 57, 283–318.
Kaya, M. İ. (2014). Acentelik Hukuku. [Agency law]. Ankara: Adalet.
Kaya, A. (2016). Acentelik. [Agency]. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
Kayıhan, Ş. (2018). Türk Hukukunda Acentelik Sözleşmesi. [Agency contract in Turkish law]. Kocaeli: Umuttepe.
Köker, N. (2017). Acente ve Acentelik Sözleşmesi [Agent and agency agreement]. İstanbul, Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Prof. Dr. iur. Merih Kemal Omağ’a Armağan, 2017(2), 185–229.
Löwisch, G. (2014). Ebenroth/Boujong/Joost/Strohn, Handelsgesetzbuch. [Ebenroth/Boujong/Joost/Strohn, commercial code]. Münich: C. H. Beck.
Poroy, R., & Yasaman, H. (2015). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. İstanbul: Vedat.
Şahin, A. (2016). Acentelik Sözleşmesinin Kısmi Sona Ermesi Halinde Denkleştirme İstem Hakkı [Compensation claims in case of a partially changed agency contracts]. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi. Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan, 2016(3), 2531–2555.
Şener, O. H. (2016). Ticari İşletme Hukuku. [Commercial enterprise law]. Ankara: Seçkin.
Tekinalp, Ü. (1998). Türk Hukukunda Acentanın “Portföy Akçası” Talebi. [Demand for portfolio right of the agent in Turkish law]. Prof. Dr. Ali Bozer’e Armağan (pp. 1–17). Ankara: Bankacılık Enstitüsü Yayınları.
Uzunallı, S. (2013). Acentelik ve Giriş Bedeli [Agency and entrance fee]. Yaşar Üniversitesi Dergisi. Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler’e Armağan, 2013(8), 2961–3020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hamamcioğlu, E. (2020). Equalization Demand of the Agent and Its Importance in Business Law. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Karabulut, G., Gözgor, G. (eds) Eurasian Economic Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 12/1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35040-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35040-6_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35039-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35040-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)