Four parties were summoned to Court in a case on an alleged claim for compensation due to performed commissioning activities during the sale of two horses to a third party.
The applicant stated that she was involved as a middleman during the sale of two horses by our client to a third party. According to the applicant they agreed that she would receive 10% of the revenue.
The client successfully disputed the statement of the applicant at Court. Not only did the applicant provide the judge with a completely incorrect image of her involvement in the sale of the horses, but there was also never an arrangement made in which the applicant was entitled to 10% of the revenue.
The Court ruled in favour of Schelstraete’s client and decided there never was a Commissioning Contract resulting in the client not being obliged to compensate the applicant. Neither were there any other grounds on which the clients could be obliged to pay the applicant a compensation of 10% of the revenue.
On April 5th 2017 the Court of Utrecht came to a judgment and rejected the claim of the applicant. Furthermore the applicant was condemned to pay for the client’s litigation costs.
