Claim for Compensation in Contractual Relations Declared Groundless
- 2021-10-18
The parties had a contractual relationship arising from a lease agreement.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to complete the construction works on time, which caused the Plaintiff to hire other contractors to finish the construction, at a cost of 1,500,000 AMD. Thus, due to the Defendant's failure to fulfill obligations, the Plaintiff incurred actual damage, i.e., the Plaintiff had to spend an additional 1,500,000 AMD to restore their violated rights.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to substantiate the emergence of rights and obligations arising from the lease agreement, nor the Defendant's breach of contractual duties, specifically the failure to complete the construction works within the established timeframe. Therefore, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Plaintiff was compelled to sign a renovation contract on June 11, 2018, due to the Defendant's unlawful actions. Moreover, the Court rightly noted that the mere signing of the contract is not enough to establish that the contract was signed as a result of the Defendant's failure to meet contractual obligations. This is because no lease agreement was presented between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that would have clarified the Defendant's obligations, their performance schedule, and deadlines.
Regarding the payment receipt and transfer letter submitted by the Plaintiff for the money paid to the Defendant, the Court noted that these were not admissible or relevant evidence to substantiate the emergence of contractual obligations and their deadlines.
Thus, after reviewing and assessing the presented evidence, citing the legal stance expressed by the Court of Cassation, the Court reasonably concluded that the existence of 1,500,000 AMD in actual damage and the causal connection between the Defendant's unlawful behavior and the damage caused was still in dispute, as the evidence provided was insufficient to confirm the facts relied upon by the Plaintiff, which were essential for resolving the dispute. Therefore, the claim for compensation was found to be groundless and was dismissed.
Note:
The decision of the Yerevan City Court of First Instance in civil case No. ED/13094/02/18 has entered into legal force.