Contract dismissed due to lack of mutual intent and defendant's fraudulent approach by the plaintiff.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for contract termination and damages against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged a valid agreement for website listing services but failed to provide any written evidence or witness testimony to prove the contract's existence. The judge found the plaintiff had used deceptive practices during negotiations, creating a false impression that no payment was required, which negated the defendant's intent to be bound. Consequently, the court ruled that no contract was ever formed because the plaintiff's fraudulent conduct prevented mutual assent.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedCivil Code articles 6:216 and 6:228: A contract requires mutual intent; if one party uses deceptive practices to induce the other to sign without intending to be bound, no contract exists and the deceptive party bears the consequences.