The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that in order to establish the pecuniary equivalent of the damage caused by the unilateral termination of an agreement, such damage should cover the actual losses, lost profit, and the repair should only concern damages foreseeable at the moment when the agreement was concluded, namely direct damages, causally related to the fact which generated them. Loss of profit (lucrum cessans) must be certain, both in terms of existence, and as regards the possibility of assessing it, however the High Court held that such condition was not achieved in this case because the appellant – plaintiff has only indicated the amount claimed and its own computation method, without any reference to objective factors for determining concrete damages on his patrimony.
Also in this case, the High Court held that the appellant – plaintiff has not proved to have suffered, due to a quiltily misconduct of the respondent – defendant, another damage than that one resulting from late payments, which was fully compensated by paying delay penalties, so that the High Court has ruled there are no grounds to approve the claim for granting compensation for loss of profit. (Civil Decision no. 141 of 21 January 2015 given on appeal by the Contentious and Fiscal Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding damages).
:: The Source: JURIDCE.ro
Adina Elena OPREA