Malmitare: contractor did not prove agreement on extra payment for roofing material

The extra 500 euros was not awarded: in this case the signed invoice confirmed receipt of the document, rather than agreement to increase the price.

Tartu Ringkonnakohus dismissed OÜ Hiolen’s appeal and upheld the refusal to award an additional 500 euros for roofing material against KÜ Malmitare. The court found that the contractor had not proved the association’s consent to increase the price or enter a separate additional-payment agreement. The contractor had repaired the roof and alleged that the parties agreed to buy higher-quality material for an additional charge. It relied on an invoice dated 4 November 2014 signed by representatives of both parties and sworn testimony from its representative. It argued that the signatures confirmed a contract amendment. The association objected that it had fully paid the agreed price of 28 378,12 euros for works and materials. It said the signature on the additional invoice confirmed only receipt of the document. There was no agreement to increase the price, and the final invoice and acceptance certificate retained the former price. The circuit court agreed with the association. The contractual estimate bound the contractor. To demand more, it had to prove a change to the total price or a separate agreement to cover the increase. The contract required a written amendment procedure: a written proposal by one party and a written reply by the other within five working days. The court did not see expressed consent to amend the contract in the disputed invoice; a note about agreement between the parties was insufficient. Neither the association’s conduct nor the contractor representative’s testimony established a separate agreement. Dismissal of the claim remained in force. Appeal costs were imposed on OÜ Hiolen; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final. The judgment concerns proof of this specific extra charge and does not establish that a signature on any invoice always has the same meaning.

Leave the Viru Maakohus judgment of 29 September 2017 unchanged and dismiss OÜ Hiolen’s appeal. The contractor bears appeal costs; the county court will quantify them after the judgment becomes final.