The dispute over vehicle modifications

The parties entered into a construction agreement under which the contractor performed vehicle modification work. The work was delivered in an acceptance certificate signed by the parties.
The customer accepted the completed work without any complaints about the quality and timing of the work, completeness and appearance of the vehicles. The parties have not drawn up documents confirming the transfer of vehicles to the contractor for work on conversion and the subsequent return of the converted vehicles to the customer.
The client sued the economic court to recover from the contractor, as unjust enrichment, the value of the materials which, according to the plaintiff, remained with the contractor after the vehicles had been converted.
The Court agreed with the arguments of SBH Law Offices, representing the defendant, on the distribution of the burden of proof in the case and considered that, taking into account the rules of relevance and admissibility, the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not establish that the plaintiff had transferred any materials to the defendant for the execution of the work. Article 658 of the Civil Code stipulated that, unless otherwise specifically provided for in a subcontract, the contractor had to perform the work using his own materials, means and efforts.
The Court of First Instance, upheld by the Court of Appeal, rejected the claim in full.

in cooperation?

Leave your contacts and we will contact you shortly

Start cooperation