HCCJ. Innominate Contract v. Contractor Agreement

The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled, in a law suit, based on the Previous Civil Code, that a contract being concluded in its simplified form does not imply per se it is an unnamed contract, which means that it does not necessarily has to be excluded from the category of contracts legally prescribed. In this case, one is not supposed to classify a contract as being an unnamed one if it contains provisions which are specific to a determined and legally established contract, as a result of non-compliance with the written form and choosing other ways of proof than documents. In the situation in discussion, the content of the contract has been proved by the parties as representing the defendant’s order to build an edifice, order followed by its effective, even if partial, execution, by the defendant, which justifies its qualification as being a contractor agreement. The High Court has stated that, in this cause, the price of the contract was not properly proved, which leads to the annulment of the contract, as one of the essential elements of the contractor agreement is missing – the price is not stipulated. (Decision no. 3814 of the 2nd of December 2014 pronounced in recourse by the Civil Section II of the High Court of Cassation and justice, covering demands).

Note: According to the provisions of the art. 1854 par. 2 NCC, when the contractor agreement does not contain any references to the price, the beneficiary is entitled to the price prescribed by law or calculated in accordance with the legal prescriptions or, if the law does not encompasses such rules, it will be applied the price established in relation to the amount of work which has been performed and the necessary expenses for the execution of the building or the rendered services, also taking into account the existent custom.

:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro

Alexandra-Adriana DOBRIȘAN

Related posts