The referred dispute concerned the proper performance of a contract for vehicle restoration services by Carrestoration OÜ.
The county court accepted Chirag’s and Kaija’s approach that although the contractor has the right to decide the order and method of the works necessary for achieving the result, the contract for services that was entered into had a specific and predictable deadline and the contractor violated the obligation to complete the works within a reasonable period of time. The county court accepted the plaintiff’s position that the restoration works carried out by the defendant were not in accordance with the contract terms and, thus, the plaintiff had the right to withdraw from the contract for services and did not have to presume and wait for the defendant to redo the works that had been done poorly.
The court ordered from the defendant full compensation for damage caused to the plaintiff concerning the additional costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with completing and redoing the faulty and incomplete work.
