The primary respondent, as creditor, agreed with the plaintiff (and secondary respondents), as debtors, on a credit agreement based on foreign currency. This agreement included a particular clause that posited that the debtor accepts documents released by the creditor (and testified by public notary) as proof of debt and that in case of potential execution, the public notary similarly testify to the amount of debt. This eventually culminated in a conflict between the parties, that led the Court of First Instance to decide in favour of the debtor, while the Court of Second Instance delivered a more favourable ruling to the creditor. As a consequence, the case went to the Supreme Court.