Pacheco V Pescaderia Del Monte

In the case at hand the referred letter calls the attention to a financial obligation and gives defendant a notice of the possibility of a suit for the right that has been invoked. The letter alludes to rights under Law 75 whose violation is of what the present action is all about. The recovery of damages is the right afforded by the statute and plaintiff has made a direct reference to it.

We find that the sending of this letter prior to the expiration of the three-year term is an extrajudicial claim which has interrupted the referred three-year period and has caused it to run anew. In view of the foregoing, we find that the instant action is not time barred.

THEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1. The action filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, was removed to this Court upon petition filed by National Western on October 6, 1983, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

2. As such he rendered services through the concession of franchises in the Puerto Rican market.

3. The termination of the dealer's contract is the central issue upon which liability under the Act is predicated.

4. Plaintiff worked for defendant from November 1, 1977, until November 20, 1979.

5. The Commerce Code applies when the contracting parties are "merchants" as defined in the Commerce Code, or when the object of the contract is "mercantile" in nature as defined by the Code.

6. Under Puerto Rico's Commerce Code extrajudicial claims do not suffice to toll the statute.

7. See Salamone, Puerto Rico's Distributor's Law: Law 75: A Primer, Revista Universidad Interamericana, Vol. 18.1, pp. 67-112.

8. However, in a recent opinion rendered on June 9, 1986, in the case of South Continental Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Armco Steel Corporation, et al, Civil No. 84-2593, a Brother Judge of this Court found that Article 941 of the Commercial Code applies in view that Law 75 is commercial in nature and the Commercial Code being in pari materia is applicable to fill the absence of a tolling provision in Law 75.

9. The Act provides in pertinent part as follows:

If no just cause exists for the termination of the dealer's contract for detriment to the established relationship or for the refusal to renew the same the principal shall have executed a tortious act against the dealer and shall indemnify it to the extent of the damages caused him...." 10 L.P.R.A. § 278b (Underscoring ours).

10. See, Industrial Equipment Corp. v. Builders, Inc., 108 D.P.R. 270, 294-295 (1979).

11.

...