18 September 2017
The claim settled in part
Recovery of a debt and the borrowed funds usage interest under the contract of transportation of goods.
Our client, a foreign company, provided freight services. In December 2014 the Customer (hereinafter the Defendant) signed the service agreement. The company of the Customer did not pay the bill. In 2016, the company was holding claim settlement. The Customer (the Shipper) confirmed the existence of the debt and asked for a repayment schedule. However, no cash was received. Since the shipper recognized the debt in 2016, the limitation period had begun anew. In December 2017, our client decided to collect in court the arrear with payments and interest for using other people's money, as well as the costs of government duties and legal fees. The contract and the CRM-program service requests were presented as evidence.
The Defendant believed that the Carrier did not prove that the CRM service requests belonged to the signed contract, and missed the limitation period. The reason behind his position was that the right of the Plaintiff to demand payment arose the next day after the end of the period for making the payment and expired one year after the delay in payments for each document. The Defendant also objected to the letter before action and the claim of the Carrier.
The court carefully considered the circumstances of the case, studied all financial documents, contracts and requests for services. Both parties were listened to, their positions and motivation assessed.
As a result, the court upheld the claim and recovered from the debtor the amount of 31,650 Euros, and the interest under the contract of goods transportation.
According to the claim of the legal bureau lawyers, the unscrupulous customer (Shipper) paid debt under the contract of goods transportation, as well as interest on the use of borrowed funds. The application of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road to the subject of the dispute allowed convincing the court that there was no omission of the limitation period by the carrier.