Dispute over compensation for renovation work in residential buildings
Dispute over compensation for renovation work in residential buildings
Two individuals have a dispute over the authenticity and content of a contract for renovation work. The Court of Appeal finds that the absence of evidence of the authenticity of a signature does not necessarily mean that the contract should be considered a forgery. Furthermore, it is considered that the content of the contract corresponds so well to the parties’ description of the course of events and other circumstances that the contract should be considered genuine. Finally, the Court concludes that fair compensation should not be paid for partially completed work as the contract provides for payment on completion of the work.
Two private individuals have agreed that one will carry out renovation work on the other’s house. However, the parties’ views differ on the exact content of the agreement. According to the contractor, both parties have signed a written agreement. She also claims that the contract requires the client to pay a total of SEK 118 000, of which SEK 15 000 is an advance payment. She also claims that almost all the renovation work has been completed but that the client only paid €4,000 in addition to the advance payment. The contractor therefore considers that the client has not paid in accordance with the contract, so it brings an action in the District Court claiming SEK 99,000 in compensation. For its part, the client claims that the contract invoked by the contractor is a forgery and that the parties actually have a different contract.However, the contract is not presented as evidence and the client states during the main hearing in court that she has lost it and that she has forgotten it at home. She also claims that the contractor exaggerates the extent of the renovation work carried out.
The court begins by examining whether or not the alleged contract is to be regarded as genuine. In the light of the case-law, the Court concludes that the contractor, as a creditor, has the burden of proving the authenticity of the customer’s signature.It is therefore up to the provider to present evidence that makes her case overwhelmingly likely. The evidence presented by the provider is interviews with herself and her husband and a copy of what she considers to be the correct contract. The Court notes that no original of the contract has been produced, nor has an expert handwriting certificate been produced to prove that the signature is indeed that of the client. On the basis of the evidence as a whole, the Court considers that the provider has not met its burden of proof, which means that the contract relied on is invalid.
With regard to the payment to be made, the Court finds, after making analogies with, inter alia, the Consumer Services Act, that the contractor must be given reasonable payment for the work performed. It further states that it is up to the provider to prove what work has been done and what it is worth. The only evidence invoked by the contractor is some photographs taken of the renovation work. The Court states that the photos prove that some work has been carried out but that it is difficult to determine exactly what and to what extent. Furthermore, no study has been presented to substantiate what would be fair compensation. Given the lack of evidence presented by the contractor, the court makes a low estimate of the value of the work and concludes that she should receive a total of SEK 45,000. As SEK 19,000 has already been paid, SEK 26,000 remains to be paid by the client. The client subsequently appeals to the Court of Appeal, claiming that no compensation should be paid.
The Court of Appeal also starts by examining whether the contract relied on by the operator should be considered genuine.It agrees with the District Court’s assessment that the provider has the burden of proof but does not consider that the lack of evidence regarding the authenticity of the signature necessarily means that the contract should be considered invalid. The Court considers that the wording of the contract is consistent with the information provided concerning the advance payment and the start of the work. Furthermore, the contract specifies tasks that the contractor can prove have been performed by means of the referred photographs. The client is also not considered to be very credible as she has provided contradictory information as to why she is unable to produce the contract she claims is valid. In conclusion, the Court considers that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the contract relied on by the provider should be considered valid. However, the contract states that, in addition to the advance payment, the contractor will be paid only when all the works are completed.