Tribunalul Iasi; 2015-04-11; 4053/99/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBIAS:2016:007.000416
Date: 2016-04-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82016RO0411(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The goods covered by a sales contract were not delivered on the date set out in the last addendum to the sales contract. The plaintiff requested the Tribunalului Iaşi (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to order the defendant to remedy the late delivery of the goods, to pay late delivery penalties due to the defendant’s failure to perform the essential obligation on time, and to pay damages for the plaintiff’s inability to use the goods and their lost profit. The basis for the action was the contract concluded between the parties and the contractual liability of the defendant.
The factual situation described by the plaintiff was supported by the contract and the correspondence between the parties. The evidence shows that the goods (machines) were delivered late, but, at the same time, the plaintiff did not pay the full price for the delivery. The correspondence did not provide sufficient evidence to assess whether the failure to comply with the contractual terms is covered by a compulsory or optional guarantee or whether it is not covered by the guarantee at all.
The late performance of the obligation in question (the delivery of the machinery purchased by the plaintiff) was not disputed by either party to the dispute. However, the failure of the plaintiff to pay the whole price as concluded in the contract precludes the plaintiff to claim late payment penalties as of 1 August 2015, as these can only be claimed to the extent that the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligation to pay the price in full.
The plaintiff did not prove that the alleged damages were covered by Article 8 of the sales contract, as it did not prove that the additional conditions imposed by Article 8.7 of the contract had been met. The claim for damages was therefore rejected as unfounded.
The claim to order the defendant to compensate the loss of the plaintiff’s profit should be rejected as unfounded too since liability for such loss was not agreed by the parties. An analysis of the terms of the contract and three subsequent addendums in no way supports the presumption that the plaintiff made it clear to the defendant that the timely delivery of the machine is necessary for the subsequent grant of non-reimbursable financing (from a third party) so that the loss of that reimbursement cannot be imputed to the defendant. The defendant cannot bear the damage claimed (60% of the value of the machine) because it infringes the principle of predictability of contractual liability as well as the predictability of damage. The interest paid by the plaintiff under the subsequent credit agreement (to a third party) is a matter outside the parties’ contract and for which the defendant cannot be held liable. The defendant’s failure to perform the contract on time could not extend its liability to cover the interests owed by the plaintiff under the credit agreement (concluded with a third party), since it is more than obvious that the limits of predictability of contractual liability would be exceeded. The defendant could only be obliged to late penalties and damages expressly arising from the contract.
The defendant did not submit any evidence to prove the veracity of its allegations regarding the reasons to not fulfil its obligations, which leads to the simple presumption that its defence based on alleged ‘force majeure’ was not true so that the defendant is ordered to pay the amount for which the defendant is liable.