Payments Archives - Pavel, Margarit and Associates

if a debt is due and another not yet due, the payment is imputed on the one due, even if the debtor had more interest on the other; when all debts are falling due, imputation will be made on the one of them to that is more onerous for the debtor, ie one that he had more interest to close; if all debts are due and both onerous, imputation will be the oldest of them; when all debts are due, and are both onerous and have the same seniority, imputation shall be attributed proportionally on each of them. The High Court stated that the legal provisions regulating the imputation of payments have facultative character, being at the sovereign discretion of the court, based on the evidence, the fact that the amount paid was charged on a specific debt. " Thus, on 25 March 2008 between the applicant as seller and the buyer, was closed a pre-contract of sale involving the sale of mobile filling stations situated on the premises of the Seller. The sale price was set by the parties to the amount of 35,000 euro, payment being made in three installments, according to art. 3 of the contract, by bank transfer based on the invoice issued by the seller. It was agreed that the ownership transfer to be made after receiving the final installment or full payment. The parties agreed through the preliminary contract of sale mentioned above the renting of the station by the buyer starting on April 1, 2008, for a period of 14 months, and the parties' agreement on renting has been materialized through the rental agreement closed on 08 April 2008, through which the duration of the contract was set until 08 June 2009. On November 14, 2009 between the two companies was closed the minutes of conciliation on the rescheduling of payments under the preliminary contract of sale dated March 25, 2008 until 3rd of March 31, 2010, finding that the debt to the plaintiff was renewed on 15 November 2009 and was in amount of EUR 13,716.6. On March 29, 2010 was received by the plaintiff a promissory note in the amount of 20,000 lei, and by the rulings of the Urziceni Court was ordered the enforceability of the of the promissory note. From the examination of the contractual clauses it resulted that the parties have not agreed on the imputation of the payment and the debtor has not done the imputation of payments, the amounts being retained by promissory note. Also, in the promissory note issued by the debtor there was no special mention of the object (destination) payments. Or, if the imputation of the payment has not been made neither by the creditor and nor by the debtor, it will be performed in harmony with the principles of art. 1113 C. civ., as follows: if a debt is due and another not yet due, the payment is imputed on the one due, even if the debtor had more interest on the other; when all debts are falling due, imputation will be made on the one of them to that is more onerous for the debtor, ie one that he had more interest to close; if all debts are due and both onerous, imputation will be the oldest of them; when all debts are due, and are both onerous and have the same seniority, imputation shall be attributed proportionally on each of them. Legal provisions regulating the imputation of payments have facultative character, being at the sovereign discretion of the court, based on the evidence, the fact that the amount paid was charged on a specific debt. In light of the above, it is found that the appeals court correctly made application of the principles enshrined in art. 1113 C. civ. regarding the legal imputation of payment by reference to the rules of evidence, and considered that the promissory note cashed on 29 March 2010, amounting to 20,000 lei, cover the remaining 13 940, remaining debt from invoice dated 01 October 2008 (as reflected in the minutes of conciliation on the rescheduling of payments under the pre-contract of sale), provided for the transfer of ownership. Moreover, the plaintiff accepted and cashed the promissory note on 29 March 2010 so that he could not ask that this payment to be charged on other debts than the one the defendant had the greatest interest to pay and concerned the transfer of property.

Tag Payments

SCCJ. Establishing the imputation method of payment, when this is not done neither by the creditor nor the debtor

It was published the law for financial discipline on the operations of receipts and payments