12:10 Sep 19, 2011 

I found some more support for "Commission Agency" at http://www.hartsang.no/en/articles/internasjonale-rettsforho...

11:51 Sep 19, 2011 

the only source that uses it, and one could question how authoritative it is since it's not an official Norwegian translation.... But that's your call and I'm sure you know what you're doing :-)

11:33 Sep 19, 2011 

Brigid,
Thanks much for the link, I hadn't seen that. Actually, it was only the third and fourth chapters of kommisjonsloven that were repealed by agenturloven. My source is citing § 53 of the former, which remains in force.
I've just found an authoritative reference that uses "Commission Agency Act" for the 1916 act -- http://tinyurl.com/6cqhske. This serves perfectly to shorten the title and distinguish it from the 1992 act and the translation's suggested short title for the latter of "Agency Act". Huzza!

06:39 Sep 19, 2011 

though in the unlikely event that it's crucial that the reader knows exactly which act it is I might add the Norwegian name in brackets. Depends on context.
I rarely use these longwinded "Act on blah blah blah blah" forms when plain "the Blah Act" would do. Each to his own though :-)

06:32 Sep 19, 2011 

notice that it was "opphevet ved lov 19 juni 1992 nr. 56" (Agenturloven). There is an English translation of this act at http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19920619-056-eng.pdf . In section 44 it translates Kommisjonsloven with "Act on Commission, Commercial Agency and Commercial Travellers". Kommisjonsloven has been amended so many times since 1916 that I think it would be risky to try something new. I think I would go with the title you found at UiO.