Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
XXV C 1198/09 AI generated

Court dismissed construction contract claim for overpayment, ruling no unjust enrichment existed due to valid contract terms.

Case Number XXV C 1198/09
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The plaintiff, a construction consortium, sued the State Treasury for over 10 million zlotys based on alleged unjust enrichment and contract variations. The plaintiff argued for currency exchange adjustments and extended project timelines, while the defendant contended the contract was fully performed. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to prove a causal link between the contract's execution and the alleged unjust enrichment, noting that the contract itself governed the financial adjustments.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 647 k.c.; Art. 405 k.c.: A claim for unjust enrichment fails when the defendant's gain stems from a valid contractual obligation, as the law does not require a direct causal link between the plaintiff's loss and the defendant's gain.

Keywords

AI generated
unjust enrichment construction contract causal link contractual obligation State Treasury civil liability overpayment claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 647 k.c.
Art. 405 k.c.
Art. 98 § 1 and 3 k.p.c.
Art. 99 k.p.c.
§ 6 pkt 7 rozporządzenia MS z 28 września 2002 r.
art. 647 k.c
art. 471 k.c
art. 379 § 1 k.c
art. 118 k.c
art. 65 § 2 k.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated
IV CK 172/03
Supreme Court allows partial payment claim for construction work under Art. 379 § 2 Civil Code.
V CSK 152/07
Supreme Court allows unjust enrichment claim against shareholder for dividends received from invalidly acquired shares.
VI ACa 1152/08
Court dismissed appeal on construction delay damages, ruling contractor failed to prove force majeure for weather delays.
V CK 24/02
Unjust enrichment claim arising from business activity is subject to a three-year limitation period starting from the call.
VI ACa 217/10
V CK 648/04
Supreme Court dismisses tenant's bad faith claim, ruling economic losses do not justify withholding damages.

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