CISG
SLOVAKIA

OS ZV - 16Cb/19/2009en

JUDGMENT

IN THE NAME OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

[slovenske znenie]

 

The District Court of Zvolen, decided by a single judge, JUDr. Andrea Snopcokova, in the case of Plaintiff R., s.r.o. [Seller], with its registered office in D., ___, Czech Republic, …, , versus Defendant S.S., s.r.o. [Buyer], with his place of business in N. S. ___, [Slovak Republic], regarding payment of 925.30 Euro [Eur] and appurtenances

 

has decided as follows:

 

The court dismisses the action.

 

The court does not grant [Buyer] the reimbursement of costs of the proceedings.

 

               

REASONING

By its action, [Seller] asserted its right to payment of 925.30 Eur with interest of 9.5 % annually on this sum for the period from 26 February 2007 until 30 June 2007, of 9.75 % annually for the period from 1 July 2007 until 31 December 2007, of 10.5 % for the period from 1 January 2008 until 30 June 2008, of 10.75 % for the period from 1 July 2008 until 31 December 2008 and interest calculated according to sec. 1 of the Regulation of government of the Czech Republic no. 142/1994 Coll. on this sum for the period from 1 January 2009 until payment and with reimbursement of costs of the proceedings.

 

[Seller] supported its action by stating that the parties concluded an oral contract of sale upon purchase orders made by [Buyer]. The object of the contract was sports clothing, specified in the invoice, which also stated the purchase price. The parties agreed that the price would be due within 30 days of delivery of the goods and that the price shall be paid via bank transfer to [Buyer]’s bank account. [Seller] dispatched the goods as a business package and [Buyer] duly handed over the goods, but did not and has yet to pay the purchase price. [Seller] claimed that the relationship established upon the oral contracts of sale shall be governed by the UN Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. Under article 78 of the Convention [Seller] has the right to payment of the interest, as [Buyer] defaulted with payment of his pecuniary obligation. [Seller] calculated the interest under sec. 369 part 1 of the Czech Commercial Code, sec. 517 part 2 of the Czech Civil Code and sec. 1 of the Regulation of Government of the Czech Republic no. 142/1994 Coll.

 

On 11 August 2009 the Court issued the order to pay, rec. no.: 16Cb/19/2009-38 which was subsequently cancelled by the resolution of 14 September 2009, rec. no.: 16Cb/19/2009-47 as the court was not able to serve [Buyer] with the order.

 

The Court ordered a hearing on 5 November 2009 but the parties did not appear before the court. The [Seller]’s legal representative excused his absence by prior written notice to the court and asked the court to decide in his absence. [Buyer] was duly summoned in accordance with sec. 48 part 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court therefore tried the case in the absence of the parties under sec. 101 part 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

 

Under sec. 409 of the Commercial Code in contract of sale the seller undertakes to deliver to the buyer chattel (goods) determined specifically or with respect to its amount and nature and to transfer the title of the goods to the buyer and the buyer undertakes to pay the purchase price.

 

The Court gathered evidence by reading the submitted documents, the invoices of 25 January 2007, advice of delivery of the business package, call for payment from 19 September 2008 and thereby determined the following factual and legal circumstances of the case:

 

[Seller] claimed by the abovementioned invoice its right to payment for the goods delivered to [Buyer] amounting to 925.30 Eur. [Seller] evidenced delivery of the goods by submitting the advice of delivery referring to the business package containing the goods, sent by postal services on 25 January 2007. The court, however, found that the advice contains neither the date of handing over of the goods, nor the signature of [Buyer] and therefore it was not proved that the goods were actually delivered to [Buyer].

 

The Court therefore determined that [Seller] did not sustain the burden of proof in accordance with sec. 120 part 1 of the Civil Procedure Code with respect to proving delivery of the goods and therefore [Seller] did not prove that his right to payment of the purchase price actually emerged. The Court therefore dismissed the action in its entirety.

 

The Court ruled on the reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings with reference to sec. 142 part 1 CPC and granted [Buyer] full reimbursement of its costs, as it was successful in its defense in its entirety.


Instruction: An appeal against this judgment must be filed via this Court within fifteen days from its receipt.


District Court Zvolen, 5 November 2009.

JUDr. Anna Snopcokova, Judge

left pannel book