The statement read: “The court of first instance number two from Catarroja (Valencia) has pronounced sentence on March 1 2007, which estimates the action lodged in year 2003 by Comatel against the Austrian company Funworld, because of the breaking of the exclusive distribution agreement dealt between both companies. “The company Inversiones Comatel, S.L. distributed Funworld´s products exclusively in Spain, specifically the touch screen machine Photo Play, which distributed more than 25.000 units. After a long process, the court of first instance number two from Catarroja in its judgement, declares ‘that the breaking of the exclusive distribution agreement dealt by Funworld AG, was unilateral and with infringement of the contractual good faith.’” Funworld responded to Comatel’s statement in the following way: “Referring to the press release lately sent out by Comatel, Funworld ag the manufacturer of Photo Play, feels commited to inform clients and partners of the true situation. “In the first level of jurisdiction, the court number two of Cartarroja, has decided in the sentence of March 1 2007 to dismiss in an almost complete manner the case and claims (investments for Photo Play and loss of profit) by Comatel against Funworld. “The decision made in 2003 to work in the Spanish market together with Carfama and therefore to finalise the cooperation with Comatel, was the only right one for Funworld and Photo Play clients since we found in Carfama an active and reliable partner” says Funworld CSO Marco Huter. “For Funworld it is extremely disagreeable, that our former partner Comatel, can still not accept in a professional manner the decision that was surely not made easily by us.” “In the reasons for the adjudication it is stated, that Funworld was entitled at any time to dissolve the contractual relationship with Comatel. Only the fact that the notice of termination should have been announced with a time limit, was declared by the court. “But as there would have been no change in the situation for Comatel, this matter of fact is irrelevant for the court decision. Reasons for the contract cancellation have been the decrease in purchase, the distribution of a competitors product and the development of an identical machine as the Photo Play terminal. “The attorneys of Funworld claimed that according to the sentence no impure attitude on the part of Funworld can be stated. The Court also declared, that Comatel and Carfama at no time competed directly against each other, as Carfama only started to work for Funworld after Comatel was not any longer the exclusive distributor for Funworld. Comatel is appealing against the sentence.”

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend