Background

A claimant filed a case against a defendant requesting that the court appoint an expert to calculate the profits and losses of a restaurant and calculate the value of the restaurant to make a clearance between the parties.

The court rejected the case.

The claimant and defendant appealed and the appeal court upheld the ruling.

The claimant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court the claimant argued that the ruling had insufficient evidence of causation as the court had established its ruling on the claimant failing to provide proof of the partnership between the parties, however, the court then upheld the appealed ruling which endorsed such partnership.

The court held that this argument was invalid as the validity of the ruling should not be affected if there is contradiction in reasoning between the court of appeal and the elementary court.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal.