Inquiry into purchase agreements entered into with the company or its owners
Inquiry into purchase agreements entered into with the company or its owners
Rescissionable violation
N.K. has purchased two electric bikes from the U.S. company Stark Drive LLC (Stark).
N.K. is, however, of the opinion that Stark is operated as an sole proprietorship and that he thus entered into an agreement directly with the company’s frontman, a person named O.S.
When N.K. gets the bikes delivered, he thinks they’re made with errors that are revocable.
Since N.K.’s termination is not accepted by Stark, he is bringing a direct action against O.S. as a private individual.
Terms
The first question the District Court (TR) is examining is who N.K. has entered into an agreement with. It’s the N.K. that needs to prove that the agreement was made with the O.S.
The right is based initially on the design and content of Stark’s website.
According to the O.S., at the time of the purchase, N.K. had to approve the terms of the contract, which were on a page with information that showed that he entered into an agreement with Stark as a company.
N.K. denies sharing that information.
In support of his claim, he cites excerpts from a website as well as screenshots that he says correspond to what Stark’s website looked like when he placed his order.
However, from interviews with the person who designed Stark’s webshop, it appears that the extract is a so-called storyboard which does not represent the design of the website at the time of purchase.
Furthermore, TR considers that it cannot draw any conclusions as to who N.K.’s contracting party was from the screenshots.
Contractor
The court will therefore go further and examine whether any other conclusions can be drawn from the correspondence between N.K. and the email address.
According to the N.K., he communicated with the O.S. personally through the address, a claim O.S. denies.
TR notes that no notice is signed “O.S.” and that he is not listed as the sender.
Nor does the invoice N.K. received after the order indicate that the agreement was entered into with O.S.
All in all, the Court considers that N.K. has entered into an agreement with Stark because he has not been able to prove that O.S. is a contracting party.
Since no agreement exists between the parties, the court has no further questions to consider and the case is decided in O.S. favour.
Reasonable costs
Since O.S. is the winning party, his legal costs must be paid by N.K. to the extent that they are reasonable.
O.S. is seeking compensation for proxy fees.
SEK 305,156 for 69.75 hours of work.
However, N.K. only pays $60,000 for 50 hours of work.
TR therefore has to assess whether the amount claimed by O.S. is reasonable.
It notes that the case contained complex legal issues, even though it concerns limited value.
According to the court, what has complicated the case is, among other things, the assessment of foreign law, how the bicycles are to be classified and the errors N.K. claims that the bicycles are subject to. The court also claims that N.K. overtified the process by not being strict in its litigation.
The court’s overall assessment is therefore that O.S. costs in the case were reasonable and that N.K. should pay the amount claimed.
Winning party
Initially, the Court of Appeal (HovR) notes that it shares TR’s conclusion and justification on the outcome of the case.
Thus, N.K. has not established that the agreement was concluded with the O.S. and the latter is the winning party.