united-states contract-law
Consulting agreement vs sales representative agreement
<p>Can you tell me if there's a difference between "consulting agreement" and "sales representative agreement"? I've been asked to do a research on that but I don't know very much about the topic.</p>

<p>Can you point me in the direction of some paper on the topic/applicable laws?</p>

<p>The company is based in the USA and should market and sell products to an European end user. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Can you tell me if there's a difference between "consulting agreement"
  and "sales representative agreement"?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Based solely on the plain meaning of words, <em>consulting</em> typically involves more functions than (or functions other than) contacting entities to offer a product or service. However, for purposes of contract law, labels mean very little and are not decisive in a controversy. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19851429474so2d95511303" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi</em>, 474 So.2d 955 (1985)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It is well-established that we are not bound by the label placed on a
  written agreement or the subjective intent of the contracting parties,
  but must look to the substance of the transaction in determining
  rights and obligations. [...] Words will have import and can be
  binding only when they describe relationships which actually exist,
  but not when they are merely labels which are used to alter or
  disguise actual relationships.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20100318075" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Steiner v. Thexton</em>, 48 Cal.4th 411, 418 (2010)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>although the agreement was titled "REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT," the
  label is not dispositive. Rather, we look through the agreement's form
  to its substance.</p>
</blockquote>
