News
Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu successfully represented the client in cassation proceeding
Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu successfully represented the client in civil case cassation proceeding where the dispute was whether an electric vehicle was sold to the plaintiff with hidden defects. The Supreme Court’s 18.11.2020 decision was with fundamental importance in a situation where lower courts had failed to assess many of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and did not submit their substantiated conclusions. In the decision the Supreme Court found that i.a that the circuit court had not analyzed the evidence submitted by the plaintiff nor taken a reasoned opinion on the facts submitted by the plaintiff based on which the plaintiff claimed that the vehicle did not comply with the terms of the contract when it was handed over to the carrier. The plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant (the seller) acknowledged the non-conformity of the vehicle by its actions were also disregarded. The Supreme Court also concluded that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff about the defects of the vehicle (for example it is not possible to drive 100km with one charging) were not considered.
The full panel of Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in the decision took a position that, in the view of the contractual condition relating to the distance covered by a single charge, the nature of the defect and the discovery of it and the reasons for the defect, if these circumstances are proved, it may be sufficient for the buyer to bear the burden of proof if he makes it plausible that such a defect as a result of transport (vehicle was transported from Estonia abroad by sea) was highly unlikely due to the nature of the defect and transport conditions.
If the circuit court upon considering the matter anew finds that the vehicle did not comply with the terms of the contract and the seller is liable for it, the circuit court must also assess whether the breach of contract was significant, including whether the defendant refused to repair the vehicle or did not do so within a reasonable time.
The Supreme Court annulled the circuit court’s decision in its entirety and referred it back for a new resolution to the same circuit court for reconsideration. The plaintiff’s appeal in cassation was upheld in full. Therefore, the court proceedings that started in May 2017 will continue in 2021 in circuit court.
Categories
Subscribe to Leadell's Newsletter
