The aim of the commentary is to assess from the perspective of Polish civil law interpretation adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union of article 7 paragraph 1 (b) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC. According to this interpretation agency contract may deprive the commercial agent of the commission on the transaction concluded without his action with the customer previously acquired by this agent for transaction of the same kind. The commentary approved this interpretation and questioned arguments expressed in the Polish literature against interpretation adopted in the commented judgment, which arguments ignore the role of agent's intermediary as the fundamental premise for the right to a commission. The commentary points the significance of principal's equitable interests as the key argument in favour of the interpretation adopted in the commented judgment.

The aim of the commentary is to analyse the Supreme Court's position regarding issues related to agent's del credere liability, especially the position regarding the loss of the right to commission for agency as a form of such liability. The commentary contests the view of the Supreme Court admitting that del credere liability of an agent may take the form of loss of the right to commission which compensating the damage suffered by a principal. The commentary indicates that questioning a possibility to establish security by an agent for principal's claim against his client, which security circumvents the law regulating agent's del credere liability, is somewhat correct only, because de lege lata semi-imperative article 7617 of the Polish Civil Code does not contain the normative basis for precluding the effectiveness of the security regulated in the bill of exchange law. It was emphasised that the agent's liability for the client's non-performance the obligation to the principal aside from the framework of restricted del credere liability, including such a liability in the framework of the ex conrtactu liability, should not be accepted. The commentary upholds the view that conclusion of the contract through the agent is only the one of the premises for the right to commission and the view adopted by the Supreme Court that the agent's commission does not depend in principle on the performance by the client the obligation to principle was considered erroneous.