The Commercial Court of Cassation has overturned a ruling that required a guarantor of the company of supplying and installing water filters, to pay 4.5 million dinars to another company as a result of the company’s breach of the supply contract and not completing it.
The court said: “The interpretation of the sponsorship contract must be narrow without expansion in the interest of the sponsor, and the contested company has been delayed in paying the payments, which has an impact on the validity of the sponsorship contract.”
The facts of the lawsuit are obtained that the company contested against it was filed a lawsuit before the Civil Court to request the ruling to compel him to lead it to 4.5 million dinars, a compensation amount of 10 thousand dinars and the amount of expert fees is 1500 dinars. I stated that, according to a solidarity guarantee contract, the appellant committed to guaranteeing a company in its commitment and good implementation by supplying 4 production lines for water filters for $ 21 million, of which it paid 20 million dollars, and the last company did not abide by its contractual obligations against it, an arbitration ruling was issued by the commercial arbitration center of the Gulf Cooperation Council states to compel it for $ 11.6 million, equivalent to the amount required, as it determines the debt. The sponsored, the appellant refrained from performing the debt he guaranteed and had caused material and literary damage as a result.
The court ruled to compel the appellant to pay the company 4.5 million dinars, so the ruling appealed, and on February 29, 2024, the court ruled to support the appealed judgment, and he was challenged again by the discrimination, and he paid the violation of the right to defense, that the contested judgment ruled that he obligated him to the amount required by him, although the sponsorship contract included a condition for its implementation is the completion of the batch, and a condition that the contested does not violate it With its commitment to pay the payments, and the contested against it paid $ 13.1 million and did not pay the price of the third and fourth lines, but the contested ruling raised this defense, and did not realize to his defense performances from the disappearance of the guarantee, which is defective in what requires it.
The court stated that the guarantee is a contract between the sponsor and the creditor in which the sponsor personally committed to fulfill the debt when it comes to the sake of its sake, and the debtor has not been fulfilled, and that the interpretation of the sponsorship contract must be narrow without expansion in the interest of the sponsor, so his commitment is determined in the narrowest scope of the sponsorship phrases, so everything that affects the original commitment affects the obligation With the guarantee of the company in its commitment to supply water filters to the company contested against it for 21 million dollars, and the contract included a condition that stands for the supply period to start from the date of payment of the remaining payment that complements the first installment, which begins the supply period for 14 months.
It also included the contract, a reason for the expiry of the guarantee, which is the arrival of all shipments, their installation, and the success of their operation, and included an void condition, which is the delay of the company contested against it in paying the payments.
The court indicated that the appellant had grabbed before the Court of Appeal with the disappearance of the sponsorship, and the contested ruling was accustomed to holding the bail and arranged for him to obligate the appellant to the amount required in the first place to prove the debt to the ruling issued in favor of the contested company against the debtor who guaranteed him in the arbitration lawsuit, which is not suitable for facing the defense of the appellant.
And because the sponsorship contract is the source of the commitment of the appellant independent of the contract against the contested and the supplier company, which the arbitration ruling was issued, and the ruling did not show the extent of the fulfillment or denial of the bail, which is to pay the contested company against the rest The lawsuit, and the court will overturn it.
