Another case won!
Does the absence of a written contract mean you will be able to get out of paying for construction work? Why must all the versions put forward by the opposing side, even purely declaratory ones, be refuted in court?
I want to share this case not because it is in any way exceptional or something new in the case law on construction contract disputes. It is simply about situations which show that it is not only contractors who tend to fail to carry out work, carry it out poorly, etc. There are also customers who don't want to pay for work already done. They live in the house that has been built, yet claim they don't have to pay for it.
The house in dispute was built in four stages. My client, as the contractor, was paid for the first three. As always, when only the last stage was left (“a classic”), it so happened that my client, trusting his customers, did not conclude a written contract, and this became a pretext for all sorts of arguments in defending against the claim in court.
But that was not the only aspect of the “defence”. There were attempts to argue that not all of the construction work itself had been completed, that the agreed amount might have been quite different from the actual total of EUR 90,000, that this was a consumer contract for works and that they, as consumers, had to be protected accordingly in this case, that my client was not the proper claimant in the case and had no right to claim the money, and other reasons.
Of course, the adversarial principle also applies in construction contract disputes, so all the arguments had to be refuted. We also had to call on a court-appointed expert examination, approach the bank that had financed the construction, examine witnesses, etc.
In the end, the court held that the arguments of my client and myself were based exclusively on evidence, and that it was likely that it was we who had told the truth in the case and proved it by all admissible means. The claim was granted and the case won.
LAWYER
