Confidentiality agreements or clauses between companies clearly operating at different levels of negotiation, such as suppliers, distributors or representatives, are likely to benefit more from the exemption available under the VRBE. Another possibility, if necessary and justified by the nature of the products, is the establishment of a SELEKTIVen distribution system in the EEA Although cross-border sales between authorised distributors cannot be prevented in such systems, it may be sales to unauthorized distributors. However, all licensed distributors must be able to make active and passive sales to consumers (including on the internet), provided that the supplier can require that sales be made from a given site, so that parallel sales cannot be excluded. As explained in question 19, online sales on third-party platforms can be legally prevented in order to protect the luxury image of products subject to a selective distribution system (Coty Germany GmbH/Perfumery Akzente GmbH (C-230/16) case). Total bans on online sales are not allowed. However, some measures can be taken to inform the distributor of the problems of parallel imports; it is not an agreement, not to make passive sales across borders. However, this approach must be prudent, as it can easily be taken into account in an agreement to prevent passive sales: contracting parties can generally enter into contracts at their convenience under the conditions they wish. It is likely that the British courts will apply a clause prohibiting the transfer of distribution rights to supplier products to a third party. However, it is all the more common since such a transfer would be subject to the supplier`s agreement. What jurisdictions, procedures and remedies do suppliers and distributors have to resolve disputes? Are foreign companies limited in their ability to make use of these tribunals and procedures? Can we expect fair treatment? To what extent can an applicant require disclosure of documents or testimony from an opposing party? What are the pros and cons of a foreign company in resolving disputes in your country`s courts? Conditions that exclude or limit liability for misrepresentation are subject to the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and the UCTA Reasonableness Test. A language that provides that no guarantees have been made or invoked (often included in the entirety of the contractual clauses) will probably also be submitted to the UCTA. In IFE Fund SA/Goldman Sachs International [2006] EWHC 2887 (Comm), the Tribunal held that the question of whether a clause boils down to an exclusion clause is a “matter of substance, not form.” Cremdean Properties Ltd/Nash [1977] EGLR 80 provides for the principle that a party cannot circumvent, by carefully chosen wording, the legal controls relating to non-responsibility for misrepresented species.