Legal praxis –

General • 13.05.2015

Kotka & co. advised J.K. Santala ltd. in a hoist commercial dispute in the Court of Appeal of Turku, which concerned the interpretation of a truck hoist transaction’s “as it is” -clause.

J.K. Santala Ltd. had purchased a hoist from a professional hoist supplier and after the transaction the hoist turned out to be completely inoperative. The vendor did not voluntarily agree to compensate for the reparation expenses.

The Court of Appeal assessed that the hoist should have been operative when it was sold, even though it was sold with a “as it is” -clause, and ordered the vendor to pay for the demanded expenses and to compensate for J.K.Santala ltd.’s legal costs.

The judgement is a valuable preliminary ruling in interpreting the “as it is” -clause and the case’s description has been published on website.

Thoughts or questions?