just in time supply contract and remaining stock at the end

Just in time

When it is concluding a supply contract just in time, Is there an obligation to purchase the remaining stock by the customer?

The First Chamber of the Supreme Court in its judgment No. 593/2016 of 06 October 2016, It pronounced for the first time on this question: En un contrato de suministro just in time, It provided the part is required to buy and remove the stock in their power to keep the supply side, at the end of the relationship.

The factual background were the following:

1. In 1990, Industriales Loar SA y Maquinaria Geka SA, oral agreement, celebraron contrato de suministro en su modalidad just in time con carácter indefinido, whereby the first (supply side) It was forced to turn to the second machining (part supplied) in a short time from its application.

2. During the contract, Industriales Loar SA fue proveedora única de facto, but without exclusivity clause.

3. In 2010, Maquinaria Geka SA resolvió unilateralmente ese contrato de suministro.

4. At the date of the resolution, Industriales Loar SA mantenía, para satisfacer eventuales solicitudes de suministro de Geka SA Machinery un stock valorado en 438.622,28 €, the cost of storage and maintenance amounted to 42.000 € and 6.000 € respectively.

Con motivo de la resolución del contrato operada por Geka SA Machinery, Industriales Loar SA SA interpuso demanda de juicio ordinario solicitando que se condenara a Maquinaria Geka SA a abonar los importes correspondientes al valor del stock y a los costes de almacenamiento y mantenimiento del mismo, plus interest of law 3/2004, of 29 December.

Dicha demanda fue parcialmente estimada por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia Nº 04 Donostia in its judgment dated 22/07/2013, por la que condenaba a Maquinaria Geka SA a abonar a Industriales Loar SA el importe correspondiente al valor del stock más los intereses legales.

Against that judgment Maquinaria Geka SA interpuso recurso de apelación, which it was dismissed entirely by the Guipúzcoa Provincial Court in its judgment dated 03/02/2014, al entender que, to the extent that the mode just in time required the supplier to maintain a stock of products to meet requests promptly supplied, the obligation to assume the remaining stock at the end of the contract corresponded to this last.

Against that judgment, Geka SA Machinery filed recurso ante el Tribunal Supremo alegando como interés casacional la inexistencia de jurisprudencia whether the withdrawal and payment of stock stored constitutes a natural obligation of the supply contract just in time, so that its express provision is not necessary and the courts to condemn the fulfillment of the same even when the parties do not expressly previeran, and a, On the contrary, it is an obligation that must be expressly agreed by the parties, so that courts can convict only satisfy as compensation for damages.

The Supreme Court, in the statement that we are commenting, desestima íntegramente el recurso de casación for the following reasons:

1. Porque el contrato de suministros just in time implica que la parte suministradora deba mantener disponible un stock de productos terminados y materias primas suficientes para hacer frente a una solicitud razonable de productos por parte del suministrado, the cost of maintenance should take.

2. Porque la obligación de la parte suministrada de comprar el stock al suministrador con ocasión de la resolución o extinción del contrato no puede considerarse como elemento natural del mismo.

3. Porque, despite the above, when the contract is integrated in accordance with the principle of good faith, it must be concluded that the company provided was required to withdraw and pay the stock stored by the supplying part.

As it can be seen from these grounds, the Supreme Court, but it concludes that the obligation to purchase the remaining to the end of the contract stock is not a natural element of the supply contract, recognizes the supplying party the right to demand of the party provided the fulfillment of that obligation. This recognition occurs from the integration contract by the principle of good faith, you can fill the gaps that present the contractual regulation that the parties have established (SSTS 419/2015, of 20/07 and 254/2016, of 19/04). This application of the principle of good faith requires particular attention to the circumstances, that can not be ignored in the face understand the Supreme Court. In this case, the following were attended:

1. The larga duración del contrato de suministro celebrado por las partes (25 years old).

2. La suministradora demandante era la proveedora única de la suministrada demandada, and he had adapted its business organization to comply with this supply contract.

3. La suministradora demandante se encontraba en situación de dependencia económica de la suministrada demandada, because this supply contract represented their main source of income.

4. That los productos que componían el stock exclusivamente podían ser utilizados por Maquinaria Geka SA.

All of them, applied to the above reasoning, justificaban condenar a la demandada, Geka SA Machinery , to buy and withdraw all the stock that the applicant,Lower bit Industricls, kept available, para satisfacer cualquier petición de la primera, at the time of termination of the contract.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply


Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Subscribe to receive a book PDF

Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter

Subscribe me

* This field is required