Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 2214/2000 AI generated

Supreme Court allows VAT-exclusive repair costs as damages when defendant contests VAT liability in joint contract dispute.

Case Number KKO 2214/2000
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court allowed A Oy's claim for damages based on a contract dispute involving B Oy and C Oy. While C Oy contested the inclusion of VAT in the repair costs, the court ruled that the VAT-exclusive amount should serve as the basis for C Oy's liability. The decision established that a defendant's objection to VAT does not preclude the use of the gross repair costs as the primary measure of damages.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Oikeus 18 luvun 5 §:n nojalla; when a defendant contests the inclusion of VAT in claimed damages, the court may still base liability on the gross repair costs if the defendant's performance was conditional on the plaintiff's proven payments.

Keywords

AI generated
contract damages value added tax joint litigation repair costs conditional liability Supreme Court civil procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Oikeus 18 luvun 5 §
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:59
Supreme Court rules that a party withdrawing a civil claim must pay opponent's costs unless special circumstances exist. The court rejected the argument that parallel criminal proceedings created an exception to the withdrawal rule.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2024:75
Supreme Court dismisses set-off claim where loan creditor and debt compensation creditor are not parties to the same debt relationship.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2020:41
Supreme Court dismisses security claim because plaintiff failed to prove likelihood of obtaining damages from defendant.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:42
Supreme Court allows employer to recover legal costs after employee pays damages then withdraws claim.
kko-precedent_2012_101
Supreme Court allows seller to recover buyer's litigation costs from prior dispute as direct damage under Commercial Code.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A Oy vaati B Oy:ltä vahingonkorvausta lattiapinnoitteen asentamista koskevan urakkasopimuksen perusteella. B Oy vuorostaan vaati korvattavakseen tulevista vahingoista korvausta C Oy:ltä sillä perusteella, että urakkasuorituksen virhe oli aiheutunut sen C Oy:ltä ostaman kiinnitysliiman virheestä. Kanteet käsiteltiin yhdessä oikeudenkäymiskaaren 18 luvun 5 §:n perusteella. Kysymys siitä, tuliko C Oy:n korvausvelvollisuuden perusteeksi asettaa B Oy:n myöntämät arvonlisäverolliset korjauskustannukset, kun C Oy oli kiistänyt korvausvelvollisuuden arvonlisäveron osalta. Kysymys myös siitä, voitiinko C Oy:n suoritusvelvollisuus B Oy:lle asettaa ehdolliseksi siten, että sen olisi korvattava B Oy:lle vain ne määrät, jotka tämä näytti A Oy:lle suorittaneensa.