Data

Date:
10-11-2020
Country:
Paraguay
Number:
104
Court:
Corte Suprema de Justicia – Sala Civil y Comercial
Parties:
Jacques Olle de Cause v. Miguel Arturo Vaccheta Boggino y Otros

Keywords

REAL ESTATE SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN TWO PARAGUAYAN PARTIES - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS OF INTERPRETING OR SUPPLEMENTING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (PARAGUAYAN LAW)

MODIFICATION OF AN OFFER - EFFECTIVENESS OF A COUNTER-OFFER - MUST BE NOTIFIED TO THE OFFEREE - REFERENCE TO ART. 2.1.3 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

Abstract

The case concerned a real estate sales contract concluded between some Paraguayan individuals. The buyer (hereinafter, Claimant) filed a claim against the sellers (hereinafter, Respondents), seeking reimbursement of the down payment performed in virtue of the contract. In addition, he requested compensation for damages resulting from the termination of the agreement, since the termination was due to Respondents’ non-performance.

The First Instance Judge ruled in favor of the Claimant, ordering Respondents to return the down payment and to compensate the damages deriving from the non-performance.

Respondents then appealed the decision of the First Instance Judge, which was set aside by the Court of Appeal. Claimant appealed before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the appellate decision.

One of the issues that the Supreme Court had to address was that of a modification of Claimant's initial offer by Defendants. The Court stated that Defendants' counter-offer was ineffective as it was not formalised and notified to Claimant. In order to support its conclusions the Supreme Court referred to the Unidroit Principles, namely Art. 2.1.3(1), in order to interpret Paraguayan law on the point.

After acknowledging that the original contract was binding on all parties, the Supreme Court determined that Claimant was entitled to receive the down payment reimbursement and an additional amount equivalent to the value of the down payment, as was contractually agreed.

Regarding the claim for damages, the Supreme Court, by majority, ruled that no additional amounts were owed to Claimant, since the contract provided for a penalty clause in case of non-perfomance.

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}