Estonia, Latvia, Legislation, Markets and Companies

According to the action filed with the Viru County Court, an oral purchase and sale agreement was concluded between the parties in 2014 by which Ex-Vale sold to Virumaa Metsatoostus packaged timber that was delivered in October the same year. No separate agreement was concluded on the transfer of ownership, and the documents accompanying the cargo and the acceptance of the goods by the buyer were deemed as grounds for invoicing. The goods were never paid for.

According to Virumaa Metsatoostus, they concluded the purchase and sale agreement with a different business and they had no contact whatsoever with the plaintiff prior to the arrival of the goods. The company maintained that the timber was of substandard quality, as a result of which it backed out of the transaction and demanded that a third party, the party it was in contractual relations with, take away the goods. The said company sent two trucks to the indicated location, which took away the timber.

The defendant's stand was that they were invoiced because the third business was indebted to Ex-Vale SIA.

The court found that despite the absence of a written agreement an obligation arose between the parties, and even if the defendant was mistaken about the seller when accepting the goods it should have established from the invoices that the seller of the goods is the plaintiff.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff EUR 15,754.66 plus a fine for delay in the amount of EUR 3,393.85. The defendant also must cover the procedural expenses.