• Tapaustiedot
    • Kansallinen tunniste: S2012/492
    • Jäsenvaltio: Suomi
    • Lyhytnimi:KKO:2014:30
    • Päätöksen tyyppi: Korkeimman oikeuden päätös
    • Päätöksen päivämäärä: 19/05/2014
    • Tuomioistuin: Korkein oikeus
    • Aihe:
    • Kantaja: A
    • Vastaaja: B
    • Avainsanat: cancellation of contract, terms and conditions, unfair terms
  • Direktiivin artiklat
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1.
  • Ylähuomautus
    A contratual term on a lump-sum compensation of 3,500 Euros resulting from an early termination of a fixed-term lease agreement shall not be considered as an unreasonable contactual term, at least when the termination is a result of an essential breach of contract by a consumer tenant.
  • Taustatiedot
    The plaintiff and the defendant had signed a fixed-term lease agreement, which was terminated two years before the end of the specified period as a result of defaults in paying rent by the defendant. According to the lease agreement, the defendant was obligated to compensate a lump-sum of 3,500 Euro to the plaintiff in addition to the unpaid rents. The plaintiff demanded the court to sustain the lump-sum whereas the defendant denied the complaint from that part. The defendant was considered as a consumer and, therefore, the provisions of the Consume Protection Act concerning unfair contract terms were applicable. It was also a matter of guarantee liability in this case, which is not summarized here.

    The District Court had held the term concerning the lump-sum as unreasonable. The parties had terminated the lease agreement by mutual consent, the compensation was high equaling four months’ rent and the plaintiff had also rented the apartment outright to the new tenant.

    The Court of Appeal had held that the term was not unreasonable. The defendant had defaulted to pay the rent for several months and the lease period was supposed to continue for two years. The default by the defendant is to be considered as essential.
  • Oikeudellinen kysymys
    Is a contractual term concerning a lump-sum compensation of 3,500 Euro resulting from an early termination of a fixed-term lease agreement to be considered as unreasonable when the termination is a result of a breach of contract by the consumer tenant?
  • Ratkaisu

    According to section 6 subsection 2 of the Act on Residential Leases, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall apply to adjustment of a lease agreement between a consumer and a supplier. According to the applicable chapter 4 section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, if a contract is unreasonable or if an unreasonable result would ensue from its application, the term may be adjusted or it may be disregarded. In the assessment of unreasonableness, due note shall be taken of the contract as a whole, of the positions of the parties, of the circumstances under which the contract was concluded and, unless otherwise follows from section 2, of the changes in circumstances, as well as of other relevant points.

    The termination had been a result of defaults by the defendant. The lease period was supposed to continue over two years after those defaults. The amount of the lump-sum is lower than the compensation for damages of which the defendant should have been obligated to pay to the plaintiff as a result of the early termination. The lease agreement had been unequivocal and therefore the defendant must have understood its contents. In these circumstances, the term concerning the lump-sum compensation cannot be considered unreasonable in terms of the defendant.

    URL: http://korkeinoikeus.fi/fi/index/ennakkopaatokset/precedent/1400236226805.html

    Koko teksti: Koko teksti

  • Asiaan liittyvät tapaukset

    Ei tuloksia saatavilla

  • Oikeuskirjallisuus

    Ei tuloksia saatavilla

  • Hakutulos
    The Supreme Court did not amend the judgment of the Court of Appeal as far as the unreasonableness of the term is concerned. Therefore, the contractual term was not held unreasonable.