Tribunalul Galati; 2020-01-31; 1738/121/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBGLT:2020:070.000048
Date: 2020-01-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82020RO0131(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a contractual dispute resolved by the Tribunalul Galați (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A plaintiff company and the defendant company concluded a sale-purchase contract according to which the defendant was obliged to find a final customer for the plaintiff’s goods. The customer (a third party) was found, and the plaintiff’s goods were delivered to that third party. The goods remained unpaid, so the plaintiff applied before the Court of First Instance and sought the payment of the alleged outstanding debt by the defendant.
The defendant responded that the claim was unfounded since the goods delivered were of very poor quality, contrary to the agreed technical specifications, and the third party challenged the delivery. Consequently, the defendant lodged a counterclaim to significantly reduce the contractual price and pay the damages for the breach of the plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the goods in good quality. The defendant also requested to bring the third party as defendant 2 to the current dispute because the goods were ordered and delivered to a third party. It was that third party who objected to the quality of the goods. The defendant relied on Article 8(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
The Court of First Instance examined the case file document, including evidence provided by expert witnesses. The plaintiff delivered the goods according to the contractual specifications between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, these contractual specifications differed from the specification requested by the third party. But there was neither communication nor any contractual relation between the third party and the plaintiff. The third party had a standalone relationship with the defendant only. Therefore, the plaintiff could not be held liable for breach of specifications to which it did not commit itself. Consequently, the third party cannot be part of the current proceedings.
It was proved that the plaintiff handed over all the ordered goods to the defendant. There were no objections to the quality when the defendant took the goods from the plaintiff, although no document confirmed the final acceptance of the goods made between the parties. The complaints about the quality were raised only after the third party took the goods from the defendant. Moreover, the evidence showed that only some of the goods were damaged. The plaintiff repaired all requested deficiencies.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the plaintiff had fulfilled all his contractual obligations towards the defendant. Conversely, the defendant failed to pay the contractual price in due time.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance upheld the plaintiff’s claim and ordered the defendant to pay the requested sum, including late payment penalties.
Subsequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim. However, the court stated that the current judgment could have the effects of missing final acceptance of the delivery between the plaintiff and the defendant. Then, a guarantee period of 24 months begins to run from the date of delivery of this judgment. Within this period, the defendant can object to the defects of the goods and bring its claim again.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.