Discontinuance of the construction contract and compensation

incumplimiento contrato

The right to withdraw from a work contract does not prevent compensation in case of default

   Consult your case now

In a contract for unilateral withdrawal is permitted for the principal, but nothing prevents establish the existence of a breach of contract which involves compensation for damages.

The sentence of Section 15 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona 13 February 2020, He solved one of these cases, confirming the judgment handed down at first instance by the Commercial Court No. 3 Barcelona.

He considered that there had been a real breach of contract by the company that managed the audiovisual media of the Generalitat de Catalunya and Catalunya Radio stations at the end of the production contract he had with MEDIAPRO, the producer.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

The 30 August 2017, MEDIAPRO, producer, and CCMA, client company, They signed a production contract for a television program.

At the adoption of the Law 8/2017, Contracts of the Public Sector, CCMA ended the tax burden contract containing the same.

MEDIAPRO brought an action for breach of contractual obligations CCMA. He asked to be compensated by way of damages, as well as legal interest.

Primera Instancia

The Commercial Court No. 2 Barcelona gave judgment on 20 May 2019, estimating the demand for MEDIAPRO. He solved the production contract. He condemned CCMA to indemnify MEDIAPRO the sum of € 200,045.41. He considered CCMA had breached its contractual obligations to withdraw from the contract in advance.

Provincial Court

CCMA filed appeal. He argued that the reasons for termination of the contract were lawful. He questioned the compensation determined in the first instance.

The section 15 He said that, even a work contract, and legally, unilateral withdrawal be allowed, He could be seen one breach of contract.

Brought up the STS 4.02.2002, which established that:

"Unilateral withdrawal from the client responds to a different situation to the resolution of the contract, as alArticle 1124CCivil, saying that "It is settled doctrine of this Court shows that the autonomy and independence of theArts. 1124 and 1594 CCivil. (…) the right of the contractor to receive the compensation referred to inart. 1594 CCivil, does not depend on the reasons which have led to withdraw unilaterally from the construction contract entered into much less that concur or not the requirements of Article. 1124 and legal doctrine that develops for the resolution of reciprocal obligations.

(…) Precepts are autonomous and independent of each other which provide different legal figures and subjected to different treatment, the faculty to be the first grants, at the discretion of the owner, without justification of any kind and depend on the effectiveness of action conferred by the second of behavior observed by each of the contractors' ".

Ultimately, para la Sala, were inconsequential motives by CCMA that chose to abandon the contract. CCMA had to compensate MEDIAPRO. Dismissed the appeal, confirming the first instance judgment issued.

To quantify compensation, He highlighted the STS 5 April 2016, He is expressing that “(…) for quantification of the compensatory consequences thatart. 1594 CCivil tied to the principal's decision to withdraw from the execution or continuation of the work, They can not be taken into account circumstances relating to compliance or noncompliance by the contracting parties of their obligations, or concerning the mobiles to the client pushed to desist.”

Conclusion

The articles 1124 and 1594 CCivil They are independent and autonomous each other, regulating different legal figures, subjecting them to different treatment. The withdrawal by the principal of a construction contract set out in art. 1594 CC is different from the resolution for breach of contract, with compensation for damages. In each case, We should study the action exercised. But in the case of a withdrawal of the principal by way of the art. 1594 C, the reasons why he chose to conclude the contract are inconsequential, to the result in any case from its obligation to compensate.

   Consult your case now

 

Leave a Reply

Language


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