Source: http://cisg.sk/en/1cb-266-2005.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 22:30:04
Document Index: 82759289

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', '§ 7', 'art 7']

OS BJ - 1Cb/266/2005en
The District Court in Bardejov, decided by a single judge, JUDr. Jana Dubrivska, in the case of Plaintiff S.G., Z.P.M.G “ E.-I. [Seller], with its registered office in G., L. n., Republic of Poland …, represented by attorney JUDr. I.P.G., versus Defendant M. J.-N. [Buyer], with its registered office in R.N., B. [Slovak Republic] …, regarding payment of 322,641.- Slovak koruna [Sk] and appurtenances
The [Buyer] is obliged to pay the [Seller] the sum of 322,641.- Sk with interest of 16 % annually for the period from 16 March 2004 until payment, all within three days after the judgment comes into force.
The [Buyer] must pay the [Seller] costs amounting to 51,784.- Slovak koruna [Sk] within three days of the effective date of this judgment on behalf of [Buyer]’s legal counsel, JUDr. I.P.G.
The [Seller] asserted, by its action filed with the court on 27 June 2005, its right to payment of 322,641.- Sk with interest of 12% annually for the period from 16 March 2004 until payment and compensation costs for the proceedings and the unpaid purchase price for the goods delivered by the [Seller] to the [Buyer]. The [Seller] justified its claim by stating that it delivered the goods to the [Buyer] and subsequently claimed the right to payment of the price by drawing invoice no. 131/EX/2004/RZ of 1 March 2004 for the sum of 33,869.- Polish zloty [PLN] due on 15 March 2004. The [Buyer] failed to pay this invoice despite [Seller]’s efforts on 22 April 2005 for an out of court settlement of its claim. The [Seller] supported the asserted interest rate by referring to sec. 735 and 502 of the Slovak Commercial Code.
On 12 August 2005 the court issued the order to pay, rec. no.: 1Rob 160/2005-21, which was subsequently cancelled due to the [Buyer]’s protest and ordered a public hearing with reference to sec. 174 part 2 of the Slovak Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).
The [Buyer] stated in its opposition that it did not oppose the [Seller]’s claim but asserted its right to unilateral set-off of its claim for damages asserted on 30 March 2004 arising from the contract on exclusive agency from 26 February 2002. The [Buyer] further stated that it suspended the payment of the invoice because of the [Seller]’s breach of the contract on exclusive agency of company N. for sale of MDF doors in Slovakia on 26 June 2002. The [Buyer] explained in its opposition that the [Seller] agreed that the [Buyer] shall be the sole and exclusive distributor of the MDF doors in the Slovak Republic and if breached, the [Seller] agreed to pay 50,000.- Euro [EUR] as a contractual penalty. The [Buyer] further stated in its opposition that after realizing that the [Seller] was violating its obligation, the [Buyer] asserted its right to payment of the contractual penalty on 29 March 2004, as it obtained evidence that the [Seller] also sold the MDF doors to other Slovak companies and the [Buyer] considered this situation sufficient to suspend the payment of invoices amounting to 47,301.62 PLN. The [Buyer] also asked the court to dismiss the action in its entirety and bind the [Seller] to pay 50,000.- EUR with interest of 12 % annually for the period from 29 March 2004 until payment, where the court would deduct from this amount the sum of 47,301.62 PLN, as invoiced by invoices no. 35/04, 110/04, 131/04.
By its resolution of 4 December 2006, rec. no.: 1Cb/266/2005-63, the court allowed changing the action with respect to the claimed interest, where the [Buyer] shall be obliged to pay 322,641.- Sk with interest of 16 % annually for the period of 16 March 2004 until payment and to pay the reimbursement of costs of the proceedings. This resolution came into force on 18 December 2006.
The [Seller] and the [Buyer] created a contract of sale when the [Buyer] sent a purchase order via telefax and the [Seller] accepted. Pursuant to this contract, the [Seller] delivered the goods to the [Buyer] – MDF doors and other goods as specified in invoice no. 000131/EX/2004/RZ; the [Buyer] handed over the goods; this fact was not challenged by the parties. The parties also did not oppose the fact that the price of the goods delivered was included in the abovementioned invoice for the sum of 33,869.- PLN which corresponds to the sum of 322,641.- Sk. This invoice also prescribed the due date and the price, as agreed by the parties when they finalized the contract.
The [Buyer] did not oppose the [Seller]’s claims that [Buyer] did not pay the price but [Buyer] claimed that it acted so because the [Seller] breached the 26 February 2002 contract on exclusive agency. The [Buyer] counterclaimed and filed protests against the order to pay and asked the court to dismiss the action and to bind the [Seller] to pay the sum of 50,000.- EUR with interest of 12% annually for the period from 29 March 2004 until payment, deducting the sums claimed by the invoices no. 35/04, 110/04, and 131/04 (with respect to invoice no. 110/04 the separate proceedings are held before this court under no. 1Cb/270/05) amounting to 47,301.- PLN. The [Seller]’s motion, in connection with sec. 98 of the Slovak Civil Procedure Code, was qualified by the court as a counterclaim, though indefinite in its petition. Nevertheless, the court did not correct this vagueness because the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the counterclaim.
With reference to article 2 part 1 of the Regulation the court of the Slovak Republic has jurisdiction to try the [Seller]’s claim for payment of 111,455.20 Sk as the unpaid price for the goods delivered. Taking the [Buyer]’s place of business into account, the Bardejov District Court is competent to try this case. Nevertheless, according to article 23 part 1 and article 26 part 1 of the Regulation, the Bardejov District Court does not have jurisdiction to try the [Buyer]’s counterclaim. The abovementioned contract on exclusive agency prescribes in its § 7 part 7.2 that all disputes arising from this contract shall be resolved by the competent court of the Republic of Poland. The parties’ agreement is in complete accordance with article 23 of the Regulation. According to the second sentence of this article, the chosen jurisdiction is the exclusive one and there is no proof that the parties made any subsequent choice of jurisdiction.
With reference to the evidence gathered, the court found that the [Seller] performed its obligation from the contract of sale and delivered the goods, as was also approved by the [Buyer]. The court also determined that the [Buyer] failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the price for the goods delivered. The [Buyer] conceded this fact and supported its position by claiming that the [Seller] breached its obligation from a separate contract on exclusive agency. Since this claim has no impact on the existence of the [Buyer]’s obligation to pay the price arising from the contract of sale and since the court does not have jurisdiction to decide the [Buyer]’s counterclaim, the court found, from the gathered evidence and by application of the Convention, that the claim asserted by the [Seller] in its action is justified and therefore the court upheld the action in its entirety and bound the [Buyer] to pay the sum of 322,641.- Sk with interest of 16 % annually for the period from 16 March 2004 until payment. The [Buyer] had the obligation to pay the purchase price for the goods delivered, as asserted by invoice no. 000131/EX/2004/RZ, until 15 March 2004. The [Buyer] failed to fulfil this obligation and therefore was in default of performance of this obligation from the day after the due date of the invoice, where the interest rate was calculated in accordance with sec. 369 of the Slovak Commercial Code.