Blog » HUNGARY: PENALTY CLAIM WITHOUT PRIOR RESERVATION? – ‘ESTOPPEL’ CONFIRMED BY CURIA
HUNGARY: PENALTY CLAIM WITHOUT PRIOR RESERVATION? – ‘ESTOPPEL’ CONFIRMED BY CURIA
29 January 2020
Is a penalty for delayed performance enforceable if the purchaser fails to reserve its rights immediately? Or is enforceability excluded only if the purchaser expressly waives its right? This article analyses the Supreme Court's judgment in a recent construction dispute, in which the court appears to have maintained its estoppel-based practice despite recent legislative changes.
A German company delivered building blocks to a Hungarian city (the purchaser) within the framework of a flood prevention project. According to the contract concluded in January 2013, under the temporal scope of the Hungarian Civil Code 1959 (the former Civil Code),(1) the German supplier undertook to use steel stocks to store the blocks. The parties stipulated a penalty in case of any delay in the supplier's performance of its contractual obligations.
As often happens in the construction industry, the supplier delivered the blocks late, in instalments. The purchaser accepted the delayed delivery and although it complained about the lack of steel stocks, it did not make a reservation of rights to enforce the penalty based on the delay.
The supplier eventually delivered the steel stocks, after which the purchaser filed a penalty claim for the delay.
2. First-instance decision
The purchaser sought payment of the contractual penalty, referring to the missed deadline set out in the contract.
The supplier contested its obligation to provide steel stocks and highlighted that the delay had not impeded the project's completion. The supplier also argued that despite knowing of the delay, the purchaser had failed to make a reservation of rights; therefore, it could not claim payment of the penalty at a later date.
The Szeged Regional Court awarded the penalty claim, holding that the building permit submitted by the supplier, which formed part of the contract, stated that the building blocks would be delivered in steel stocks. Due to its failure to deliver these stocks, the supplier had breached the contract. Therefore, the penalty claim was justified.
3. Second-instance decision
The Szeged Regional Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. It held that under the former Civil Code, the purchaser had not been required to make a reservation of rights to enforce the claim arising from the breach of contract at a later date.(2)
According to the Szeged Regional Court of Appeal, an inverse legal situation existed: in the absence of an express waiver of the right, the penalty could be enforced.
Notably, the Szeged Regional Court of Appeal classified the parties' relationship as a long-term contractual legal relationship, which had lasted for several months, after which they had settled their accounts with each other. As such, the fact that the purchaser had not made a reservation of rights at the takeover was insignificant.
4. Supreme Court decision
The supplier pursued an extraordinary remedy against the second-instance decision by submitting a request for review to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found the supplier's request for review to be well-founded. According to the court, in demanding a reservation of rights in the former Civil Code, the legislature had intended that only breaches of contract which are considered sufficiently substantial and serious by the parties would have detrimental legal consequences.
Therefore, in the absence of a prior reservation of rights, the purchaser could not refer to conduct of the other party which could formally be characterised as a breach of contract, but did not in fact impede the contract's fulfilment. Gaining an unfair advantage in this way would be contrary to the principles of mutual cooperation and good faith, which apply during the fulfilment of a contract.
In the present case, the purchaser has lost its opportunity to impose penalties against the supplier for the delay because it had failed to expressly reserve its right to do so, despite being aware of the delay.
5. Legal analysis – estoppel principle
The main issue in this case is closely related to the common law device of estoppel. Based on the principle of estoppel, the courts may prevent (or 'estop') a person from making assertions or going back on their word.
One of the leading English cases on promissory estoppel involved a contract of sale for coffee beans. The contract required the beans to be paid for in pound sterling, but the purchaser paid in Kenyan shillings due to a wrongly issued invoice. However, the English court ruled that the purchaser could not challenge the performance of the contract as it had failed to raise an objection immediately.(3)
Similarly to the principle of estoppel, the former Civil Code expressly required obligees to make a reservation of rights to enforce rights referring to a known breach of contract. However, the new Civil Code,(4) which entered into force in March 2014, is silent on this matter.
Despite the fact that the present case was governed by the former Civil Code due to the contract date, the first and second-instance courts tried to interpret the old provisions in light of the new Civil Code and did not require a reservation of rights from the purchaser to enforce the penalty.
However, the Supreme Court has drawn a sharp line of demarcation between the old and new regime, maintaining the case law relating to the former Civil Code, according to which a purchaser which is aware of a breach of contract, but accepts the performance, must make a reservation of rights in order to enforce any further claims arising from the breach.
This approach of the Supreme Court is more compatible with the requirements of foreseeability and business reasonableness as it favours transparent communication, which is a key feature of the estoppel principle under common law.
6. Future approach
However, in cases where the new Civil Code applies, a new trend is developing in the first and second-instance courts which is contrary to the estoppel principle.
According to this trend, only an express waiver of rights – and not "accepting performance and remaining silent" – deprives a purchaser from submitting further claims in case of a breach of contract.(5)
The question remains as to whether the Supreme Court will – in cases in which the new Civil Code applies – maintain the sharp line of demarcation between the old and new regime by upholding the case law developing in the first and second-instance courts.
In such cases, foreseeability and business reasonableness would be undermined and the law would support non-transparent communication. Indeed, it would be unexpected for a party to enforce further claims if it had accepted the performance and remained silent on the consequences of a contractual breach.
For this reason, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will maintain its estoppel-based jurisprudence by providing a praeter legem (ie, outside the law) interpretation of the new Civil Code.
5 KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION IN HUNGARY
If you intend to pursue a claim against a Hungarian debtor, based on the contract on which a dispute is based, you may need to bring a case before an ordinary Hungarian court or to initiate Hungarian arbitration proceedings. In this short article we summarise the 5 key differences between the two procedures.Read more »
WHAT TO LOOK FOR BEFORE HIRING AN EMPLOYEE IN HUNGARY
In the field of labour law, we meet with strict rules which protecting the workers. The failure of compliance may result in not only consequences, but it can cause serious harm to the company’s reputation. Therefore, in this short summary we sum up the most important things that an employer needs to know before hiring an employee in Hungary.Read more »
CAN THE EMPLOYER EXPAND THE EMPLOYEES’ DUTIES WITHOUT CHANGING THE JOB DESCRIPTION IN HUNGARY?
The position and tasks of the employee are one of the key elements of the employment contract and are typically recorded in the job description. It is often a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employer can unilaterally modify the job description at all, and if so, to what extent. In a recent court decision, a Hungarian appellate court addressed the above question in a situation where the employer supplemented the employee's tasks with new tasks similar to his existing tasks. In this article, we analyse the recent decision on this matter.Read more »