|
Case Law: - Denmark - Finland - Iceland - Norway - Sweden
- Bulgaria - Estonia - Latvia
|
Abstract by Gea Lepik and the University of Tartu In 2007 an Italian company SS.r.l (The Buyer) and an Estonian Company ASL (the Seller) agreed that the Seller sells and the Buyer buys a workbench from the Seller and the Seller delivers the workbench to Italy. The Buyer made an advance payment for the full purchase price. The Seller did not deliver the workbench. The Buyer filed an action in the Harju County Court to recover the purchase price from the Seller. The Buyer also claimed interest on the purchase price and a fine for delay in payment (penalty for late payment). The Seller did not present a statement of defense and also did not appear before the court. Thus, the Harju County Court (the Court) made a judgment by default (in absentia) and satisfied the Buyer’s claims in full. The Court found that the Seller had not fulfilled its obligation under Art 33 (c) of the CISG to deliver the goods within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract, and applied Art-s 81 (2) and 84 (1) of the CISG. According to Art 81 (2) in the case of avoidance of the contract a party who has performed the contract either wholly or in part may claim restitution from the other party of whatever the first party has supplied or paid under the contract. Pursuant to Art 84 (1) if the seller is bound to refund the price, he must also pay interest on it, from the date on which the price was paid. The court also ordered the Seller to pay interest for late payment (fine/penalty for delay in payment) referring to ยงยง-s 94 and 113 of the Estonian Law of Oblications Act 2002.
Translated text n/a <https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtuteave/maa_ringkonna_kohtulahendid/menetlus.html?kohtuasjaNumber=2-09-3155/6> |