In a situation where the defendant demanded the plaintiff remove the defects on the installed carpentry, and the latter did not do so, but they were only partially removed by a third party, the defendant unreasonably opposes the payment of the remaining contract price only because the plaintiff did not eliminate the material defect as requested by the defendant.
Namely, in this specific case, the defendant could have successfully opposed the plaintiff's request for payment of the remaining part of the agreed purchase price only by claiming price reduction, compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the plaintiff's failure to eliminate material defect, or termination of the contract. However, the defendant did not raise a claim of such content in the present proceedings.
Therefore, The First Instance Court made a mistake in applying the substantive law when, by invoking the provision of Art. 410, paragraph 1, (1) of the Obligations Act (OA), it rejected the claim as unfounded, because with the correct application of the provision of Art. 376, paragraph 1, Art. 9. and Art. 29 para. 1 of the OA, the claim should have been accepted and the defendant obliged to pay the remaining part of the agreed purchase price in the amount of HRK 15,129.12 together with the statutory default interest running from the maturity of the obligation on 28 March 2015 until payment.
Cjeloviti tekst: Cjeloviti tekst