Laws Ann. § 278a-l (Official translation Supp.1991). The fact that this new section was expressly made non-retroactive could be interpreted to support the view that the invasion of exclusive territory did not constitute “impairment” prior to the date of effectiveness of the 1988 amendment. However, the better interpretation, and the one adopted by the Court, is that the 1988 amendment did not establish new law, but instead only codified the unbroken line of judicial decisions determining that a principal’s interference with its distributor’s exclusive territory constituted impairment for Act No. 75 purposes. See, e.g., General Office Prods. Corp. v. Gussco Mfg., Inc., 666 F.Supp. 328, 331 (D.P.R.1987); cf. Vulcan Tools of P.R. v. Makita U.S.A., Inc., 23 F.3d 564, 568-69 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). See also Arturo Estrella, El contrato de
holding that the court cannot by splitting up the territory make a new contract for the parties recognizing that naming additional distributors in a distributors exclusive territory would constitute impairment holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that an exclusive license standing alone did not bar sales to a store that would resell the product within the exclusive territory of a different company and noting that there was no restriction against bona fide sales to an independent vendor even with knowledge that some products may be resold into another territory