The Terms Of This Agreement Shall Prevail

Clause 2.4 of the Agency Agreement addresses the relationship between the explicit terms of the Agency Agreement and the terms and conditions of the Agency Agreement: “2.4 In the event of conflict, opposition or inconsistency. the provisions of this Agreement shall have priority. Finally, this case is also a useful reminder that a party may have the contractual freedom to define rights and obligations, but that the parties must always be attentive to misleading and deceptive conduct. `If any of the conditions introduced is in any way contrary to the conditions expressly agreed, those conditions must prevail over the conditions otherwise introduced.` Moore J. stated that the starting point was whether the terms of clause 9 of the agency contract, considered in isolation, derogated from an airline`s contractual right to determine the nature and amount paid to an agent as remuneration. If the answer is yes, the next question is whether Section 9 of the Distribution Agency Rules restricts an airline`s remuneration rights and does not do so in a way that creates “conflicts, contradictions or contradictions”. Nothing in this agreement requires GNM to publish extracts or serializations. In the present case, the judgment continued to verify whether either of the main contract documents and another contained therein were a standard form document, as some documents still prevail over standard form agreements. `9 For the sale of air and auxiliary services. The carrier shall remunerate the agent in a manner and height indicated from time to time and communicated to the agent by the carrier.

This remuneration constitutes full compensation for the services provided to the air carrier. 9.4.1 (b) “Applicable Rates” are the transportation rates (including fare surcharges) according to the Members` rates and exclude. Taxes and other taxes levied by the agent. (Highlighted only here) “9.1 Commission . Agents are paid from time to time by the member. In this case, the meaning of the term “applicable rates” is decisive. The applicant claimed that Qantas disputed that the fuel surcharge was part of the tariff applicable for the purposes of calculating the commission. “The terms of this agreement must control,” the document says, people who have read it have said. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and third parties, this Agreement shall take precedence to the extent that such conflict concerns the Services (as opposed to their access). Moore J. concluded that it was likely that members of the travelling public who had purchased tickets on behalf of Qantas had been led to believe that the amounts referred to as “taxes/fees”, or “taxes/fees”, consisted only of elements of the character described in the terms and conditions of sale.

Such an amount is the fuel surcharge which was not of that nature. His honor went on to say that it is likely that some members of the traveling public mistakenly assumed that the amounts called “taxes/royalties” or “taxes/royalties” do not include an amount paid to Qantas and not to a government agency or other third party. If the clauses cannot be read together, there is an inconsistency in this regard and a special condition is to prevail over the other clause in printed form. However, if they can be read together, they should be and there is no inconsistency. . . .