Utah Code » Title 34, Chapter 44 — Sales Representative Commission Payment Act; part 34-44-1 — General Provisions
Utah Code

Utah Code § 34-44-104 (2026)

Void provisions

✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any of the following provisions in an agreement between a sales representative and a principal is void:

an express waiver of any right under this chapter;
for a writing required by Section 34-44-201 that is entered into in this state, a provision that makes the sales representative subject to the laws of another state; or
a requirement that the sales representative pursue a claim under this chapter in a court not located in the state.

Enacted by Chapter 65, 2007 General Session

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2021–2024 · leading case: Alarm Prot. v. Crandall, 2021 UT 26, 491 P.3d 928.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alarm Prot. v. Crandall, 2021 UT 26, 491 P.3d 928. “UTAH CODE §§ 34-44-104, -301(2). Most importantly, it expressly contemplates situations like the one here, where a sales representative alleges that the principal failed to pay earned commissions, and the principal alleges that the sales representative owes the principal money.”
Alarm Prot. v. Bradburn, 2021 UT 25, 491 P.3d 947. “UTAH CODE §§ 34-44-104, -301(2). Most importantly, it expressly contemplates situations like the one here, where a sales representative alleges that the principal failed to pay earned commissions, and the principal alleges that the sales representative owes the principal money.”
Integrated Bus. Plan. Assocs. v. Operational Results, No. 2:22-cv-00733 (D. Utah June 6, 2024). “However, the Act itself seems to contemplate exactly this sort of attempted contractual workaround.”
Utah Code § 34-44-104(1): 1 case
Integrated Bus. Plan. Assocs. v. Operational Results, No. 2:22-cv-00733 (D. Utah June 6, 2024). “However, the Act itself seems to contemplate exactly this sort of attempted contractual workaround.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.