The judges from The High Court of Cassation and Justice appreciated (in the Decision no. 417 from the 1st of February 2011 pronounced in appeal at the Commercial Department of the HCCJ which had as object the adjustment of damages as a consequence for the annulment of a trade mandate contract) that in the commercial field, the mandate contract, which was a onerous one, has a certain stability, which was given for some trade business and principle of the judicial reports certainty or the security of the transactions imposes that the contract must not be interrupted without a proper compensation for the damage brought by the annulment or unexpected renunciation. For this cause, the provisions of the article 1431 paragraph (4) from the firms bill no. 31/1990 states the privilege of the Administration Council to revoke the directors, but in the case when the revocation is unfairly, the named director has the right for damages. In the same time, article 391 the Commercial Code outlines very clear that the principal who unfairly interrupt the mandate execution responds for the caused damages. In the case, contrary to those from the named decision, the High Court found the unfairness from the mandate annulment, with the consequence of the appeal admission, the decision’s cassation and re-send the case to be re-judged at the same court, just because the representative receives the damage reparation that this annulment caused.
>> The source