Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu successfully represented the client in a lawsuit
Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu successfully represented the client in a civil case, arguing whether direct material damage had been caused to the client by a bar visitor and whether it should have been compensated by him. The lawsuit pointed out, among other things, that the defendant repeatedly pushed the outside door of the bar so strong that the door got damaged and had to be replaced. The defendant objected against the lawsuit stating that the door was old, etc. The court, having relied on the grounds and documentary evidence provided by the claimant, found that it had been identified and proved that the defendant had committed the unlawful act described by the claimant and thereby caused material damage to the claimant (the claimant’s damage was also based on a price bid submitted by the contractor regarding with the work necessary to change the door).
The court agreed with the claimant that, as a result of the defendant’s actions, he had to make expenditure to restore the business premises to their former state. An important nuance was that the claimant was not even the owner of the business premises but a tenant, who, under the lease contract, was obligated to compensate the landlord for the damage caused by the rented item. The court stated that, in the present case, the damaged object was not owned by the claimant, and that, according to the meaning of legal norms pointed out by the court, the damage caused to a rental object in the possession of a person is also equated with infringement of property.
The court held that the repair or the acquisition of a new object must be carried out under reasonable conditions and that the injured party has to, if possible, opt for a more favourable option, but that does not mean that the injured party should choose the cheapest of all possible options if it could have presumably of lower quality. The court found that the claimant by reasonable means had the right to choose the person who would supply and install the new door to him and that the claimant did not have to claim from the defendant to order a new door.
The county court granted the lawsuit, i.e. ordered the defendant to pay both damages and calculated interest from the damages (including prospectively until the principal claim is fulfilled) and ordered the defendant to bear all the procedural costs (including the claimant’s contractual representative). The Court also found that interest on arrears should also be paid in the event of a delay in the reimbursement of costs of proceedings.