Category: Intel

The Supreme Court held that a seller's deliberate silence regarding pre-existing debts attached to a commercial registration constitutes deception under article 103 of the Civil Transactions Law. Consequently, the court ruled that such deception renders the contract voidable, granting the buyer the right to terminate the sale and restore the pre-contractual position.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the State Audit Institute (SAI) has a duty to release the confidential emails of a third-party held in its possession to support the defence of the government against the claims made by that third-party in an arbitration case.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the contractor had no rights under a contract it signed with the government due to the failure to comply with the requirements of Royal Decree 48/76 regarding the Signing of Foreign and Domestic Financial Transactions. The MJLA noted in its fatwa that the contractor can take legal action against individuals in their personal capacity whose actions resulted in the contractor suffering harm.

The Supreme Court held that an employee of a law firm who receives funds from clients to perform legal tasks acts as an agent for those clients. Consequently, misappropriating these funds constitutes the crime of breach of trust under article 360 of the Penal Law, regardless of whether the employee received the funds in a personal capacity or on behalf of the firm.

The Supreme Court held that an employer is bound by the conduct of its unauthorised employees when they appear to third parties as representatives of the employer, even if they are not specifically authorised to carry out the acts in question.

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause does not relate to public order, and a court cannot raise it on its own motion. A party must raise the arbitration defence before submitting any substantive defence on the merits of the case. Entering into the merits of the dispute before raising the arbitration clause constitutes an implicit waiver of the right to rely on it.

The Supreme Court held that the mere possession of frankincense without proof of purchase does not in itself render the possessor to be in violation of the Law on Environmental Protection and Pollution Control, even if it is not possible to obtain the amounts of frankincense in question without violating the law.

The Supreme Court held that a contract for the sale of a future asset—here, a villa under construction—is valid, provided the asset is sufficiently defined to negate ignorance and uncertainty, in accordance with article 118 of the Civil Transactions Law. A sale is not void merely because the asset does not yet exist or is not in the seller's possession at the time of contracting.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though a contract for the sale of real estate is invalid due to the failure to register the sale of the land officially with the government, a party can still be held liable in tort to the other party for the consequences of the invalidation of the sale.