BCC 468/2006

This case involved a claim for money owed for the use of a commercial name. A document which proved that there was an agreement to vacate property in exchange for settlement of bills did not prove the claim surrender.

Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant before the civil court requesting the defendant to pay him an amount of money and interest. The claimant said that he was the owner of a restaurant chain and the owner of its commercial name. The claimant said that he authorized the defendant to use the commercial name to sell the same products and the defendant owed to him an amount of money as a result.

The court ruled that the defendant should pay the claimant 52295.341 Dinars and 4% interest.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had contradictions of material documentary evidence because the court had ignored the document in which the claimant surrendered his claim.