Corporate case law

Contreras, Pablo Rubén c/ Pepsico Snack Argentina S.A. s/ ordinario (National Commercial Court of Appeals, Chamber B, 24/02/2005)

Whether termination of a distribution relationship required sufficient advance notice and what damages arose from an abrupt termination. The Commercial Court of Appeals held that, even where a party has the right to terminate a long-term relationship, that right must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable advance notice when the counterparty has organized its business around the relationship.

CNCom., Sala B24/02/2005

Case caption

«Contreras, Pablo Rubén c/ Pepsico Snack Argentina S.A. s/ ordinario»

What was at issue

Whether termination of a distribution relationship required sufficient advance notice and what damages arose from an abrupt termination.

What was decided

The Commercial Court of Appeals held that, even where a party has the right to terminate a long-term relationship, that right must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable advance notice when the counterparty has organized its business around the relationship.

Extractable criterion

The Commercial Court of Appeals held that, even where a party has the right to terminate a long-term relationship, that right must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable advance notice when the counterparty has organized its business around the relationship.
The holding should be read in light of the legal interest protected in the area of commercial distribution, not solely by reference to the documentary form of the act.
Evidence of the specific facts and of their impact on corporate or creditor rights is decisive when applying the precedent’s doctrine to another case.

Citation: CNCom., Sala B, «Contreras, Pablo Rubén c/ Pepsico Snack Argentina S.A. s/ ordinario», 24/02/2005 — Jurisprudencia societaria y comercial

Practical application

It is a leading reference on distribution, agency, and dealership relationships both before and after the Civil and Commercial Code.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main takeaway from the case?

Does the rule apply automatically today?

No. The current statutory framework and the specific facts must be verified. Historical precedents retain doctrinal value, but later reforms may alter how they apply.

What should be proven in similar litigation?

The relevant corporate or commercial documentation, the parties’ conduct, the specific harm, and the facts connecting that harm to the central issue in the case: Whether termination of a distribution relationship required sufficient advance notice and what damages arose from an abrupt termination.

Informational commentary on a published ruling; it does not constitute advice nor guarantee an outcome. Application to a case depends on its circumstances.

Do you need advice on this matter?

The firm is headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and advises clients worldwide.

Contact the firm