Rejection of the lawsuit (main action) for contractual damages as unfounded, abusively introduced to dispute the certainty of the claim for which in another case insolvency was requested against the plaintiff, and consequently acceptance of the counterclaim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The counterclaim asserted unpaid invoices for construction services performed for a commercial company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In fact, between the beneficiary company and the supplier company, a services contract was concluded covering construction works and interior arrangements. Essentially, the beneficiary had subcontracted to the supplier part of the works it had undertaken for construction of two supermarkets in Bra\u0219ov and Ilfov counties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After some time from commencement of the contract, and without major incidents in payment, the beneficiary company began registering arrears in payment of the invoiced services. Given these prolonged and repeated delays, the supplier was forced to stop performing additional works, because, due to the situation, it was unable to pay its employees or its own obligations to third parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under those conditions, the supplier refused further performance under the contract. This refusal derived from nonpayment of matured invoices and represented the invocation of the defense of non-performance exception<\/strong>, under Article 1556(1)<\/strong> of the Civil Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because the beneficiary\u2019s debts were not paid, the debt recovery attorneys of Brisc Legal demanded from the beneficiary company that it pay all remaining obligations under the contract and the acknowledged work reports. Otherwise, proceedings would be initiated to open insolvency proceedings against the beneficiary to recover those sums.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After sending the formal demand, although partial payments were made, the remaining debt exceeded the threshold of 40,000 lei<\/strong> required by Article 5(1), point 72 of Law 84\/2014<\/strong> for triggering an insolvency request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the supplier, assisted by Brisc Legal\u2019s insolvency attorneys, sought from the competent tribunal the opening of insolvency proceedings of the beneficiary for recovery of the debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a last attempt to block insolvency and avoid payment of the remaining amounts, the beneficiary filed a lawsuit<\/strong> against the supplier, seeking alleged damages for non-performance of works under the services contract. In its lawsuit, it claimed the supplier had unjustifiably abandoned the site and left works incomplete and that the already executed works were defective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It argued that as a result it incurred financial damage by needing to continue works with another company and rectify the supplier\u2019s abandoned works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To defend the interests of the defendant company (supplier), Brisc Legal\u2019s commercial litigation attorneys filed a reply<\/strong> and a counterclaim<\/strong>. In the reply they asked that the main lawsuit\u2019s claim be rejected as unfounded, arguing that the beneficiary\u2019s failure to pay triggered the non-performance exception and prevented claim of damages. They also showed via the signed work-report documents that the work executed met contractual standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In their counterclaim they requested payment of the remaining unpaid amounts for works already performed, plus default (penal) interest. Brisc Legal lawyers successfully proved to the court that the supplier\u2019s claim was certain, liquid, and due<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court ruled rejection<\/strong> of the plaintiff\u2019s (beneficiary\u2019s) lawsuit and acceptance<\/strong> of the counterclaim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It validated all the legal reasoning and evidence presented by Brisc Legal \u2014 that the supplier was justified to stop works, that the unpaid sums were legitimately owed, and that the counterclaim was properly documented. The court ordered the beneficiary company to pay all remaining debts for the constructed works, inclusive of default interest, and also ordered payment of litigation costs: judicial stamp duty and attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Case Study \u2013 Claims Between Commercial Companies and Debt Recovery Rejection of the lawsuit (main action) for contractual damages as unfounded, abusively introduced to dispute the certainty of the claim for which in another case insolvency was requested against the plaintiff, and consequently acceptance of the counterclaim. The counterclaim asserted unpaid invoices for construction services … <\/p>\nTaking Over the Case by Brisc Legal\u2019s Debt Recovery Attorneys<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Proof of a Certain, Liquid, and Due Claim<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Court Decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n