Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vinotindo English Editan Ruri
Vinotindo English Editan Ruri
5. The Distribution Cooperation relationship walked run very good since 1992, its
marked with:
b. Interface and Heuga Carpet Tiles Product Sales always reached target every year
and lean increase, except year 1997-1999, when monetary and economic crisis
moment knock down Asia Economy;
7. At 1st of January 2002, Mr. Jim Tan as a new manager revised the Distribution
Agreement, date of 23rd of September 1993 between InterfaceFlor with Vinotindo,
where Vinotindo think assumed that clausal clause stated in Distribution Agreement
harmed Vinotindo, especially in Termination Clausal Clause in Article 8 Letter b of
Distribution Agreement, date ofdated in 1st of January 2002:
8 (b) During the first year of this Agreement, termination by Interface will only be
made based on Clause 8a(i), 8a(ii), 8a(iii) and 8a(iv) above. After the first year,
Interface may terminate this Agreement for any reason or without cause by
giving Vinotindo three (3) month’s written notice.
8. Based on Vinotindo effort during the time which when Vinotindo had developed
Interface and Heuga Carpet Tiles brand product in Indonesia, so that the product had
recognized widely at in contractor, designer and consumer, but at the end Vinotindo
have to accept and sign the Distribution Agreement;
9. At the middle of 2004, PT. Gema Grahasarana, Tbk as Main Contractor at ACE
INA Project, gave information to Vinotindo about the other distributor Sub-Contractor at
the same project, that used Interface and Heuga Carpet Tiles, which is legaly sold
legally and distribute only by Vinotindo in Indonesia, according to Article 2 Letter c and
d Distribution Agreement date of 1 January 2002:
2 (c) During the term of this Agreement, Interface shall refer to Vinotindo all inquiries
and orders for the products to used in Indonesia.
2 (d) Interface will make reasonable effort to ensure that Interface’s dealers from
ather territories/ countries donot sell the products into Indonesia. However,
such efforts will be limeted to persuasion and Interface will not be bound to take
any legal action to prevent sale of the products in Indonesia by parties orther
than Vinotindo.
10. After confirmed to InterfaceFlor, InterfaceFlor always denied to refrain that possibility of
their product which come from InterfaceFlor and they always said assumed that the
product maybe may directly imported from the other party in Singapore and Thailand or
maybe the product had was quite similar looked like with Interface and Heuga Carpet
Tiles Product;
11. According to InterfaceFlor respond, Vinotindo think assumed that InterfaceFlor had
illegal cooperation in Interface and Heuga Carpet Tiles Product Distribution and Sale in
Indonesia (Parallel Illegal Import) with Kencana, without Vinotindo permission.
According to email communication, InterfaceFlor implicitly confessed that they already
known about Kencana had also marketed and selled the product in Indonesia, besides
Vinotindo;
12. At 6 May 2004, InterfaceFlor unilaterally terminated the cooperation agreement with
Vinotindo, based on there was unreason degradation Vinotindo sale. Although there
was degradation Vinotindo sale also related with illegal distributor (Kencana) in
Indonesia;
14. After communication by email and phone, InterfaceFlor offered Vinotindo to revise
Distribution Agreement, date ofdated on 1st of January 2002 with Vinotindo, that
InterfaceFlor appointed Vinotindo and Kencana as Distributor for Interface and Heuga
Carpet Tiles Product and also still kept Article 8 Letter b about Termination Clause in
Distribution Agreement;
15. At 1 July 2004, with the same consideration and reason to sign Distribution Agreement
date ofdated in 1st of January 2002, Vinotindo accepted and signed Distribution
Agreement date ofdated in 1st of July 2004, with repair business performance in future
expectation;
18. That attitude of diskriminatif REPORTED [BY] the I clear proportional and inequitable
( Unfair Competition), where REPORTED [BY] II which [do] not [release] expense (Big
Cost) in enlarging product of Carpet Tiles of brand of Interface and Heuga own
REPORTED [BY] I, [is] always permitted to follow each;every existing tender, while
RAPPORTEUR which is during 12 ( Twelve) year enlarge name of product of Carpet Tiles
with brand of Interface and Heuga [is] always commanded to retreat ( Stay Out);
20. That attitude of diskriminatif REPORTED [BY] the I clear proportional and inequitable
( Unfair Competition), where REPORTED [BY] II which [do] not [release] expense ( Big
Cost) in enlarging product of Carpet Tiles of brand of Interface and Heuga own
REPORTED [BY] I, [is] always permitted to follow each;every existing tender, while
RAPPORTEUR which is during 12 ( Twelve) year enlarge name of product of Carpet Tiles
with brand of Interface and Heuga [is] always commanded to retreat ( Stay Out);