DCC 43/2009

The original dispute involved a tender where two parties had agreed to participate and there was a difference between prices agreed and prices in the contract so there was a loss of anticipated profit. A key point was that the trial court had the authority to agree the parties' obligations under they were clearly stated in the contract. The judgment was flawed because its reasons did not show the contractual commitment the Defendant had breached or did execute it well and the compensation was decided on that basis. It had also not shown bilateral obligations in the agreement.

Key legal Questions

If a debtor who does not execute his obligations or breaches the clauses of the agreement or causes delay in their execution should be held responsible to compensate for damages.

If the creditor is the one who should prove the error made and the damages.

If a debtor can prove there were no links between the error and the damage he is not held responsible.

If the Trial Court has the authority to conclude whether the error made makes the person liable or not unless it is clearly stated in the agreement.