Following the annulment of a sale agreement, the buyer claimed, in addition to the refund of the price, compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the eviction. Both the first court and the court of appeal held that the claim was groundless because the sale agreement had been annulled. However, in the second appeal, the Craiova Court of Appeal held that the retroactive termination of the agreement and the reinstatement of the parties in their situation prior to the conclusion of the agreement, as a result of the nullity of the sale, does not exonerate the defaulting seller from liability for eviction.
By its introductory claim, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to refund the purchase price plus the increase in value and to pay damages on the basis of liability for eviction. The first court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and the court of appeal dismissed its appeal. The plaintiff therefore filed a second appeal arguing that the nullity of the sale agreement does not exempt the seller from liability for eviction.
The Craiova Court of Appeal held that the legislation on eviction do not distinguish between the ways in which an agreement is terminated (by annulment or termination for breach). Thus, even if, following the termination of the seller’s title, the sale agreement has been annulled, the seller is still liable for breach of the warranty against eviction. The Court of Appeal ordered a retrial of the case under the provisions on eviction, and the court that retried the case admitted the plaintiff’s appeal and ordered the seller to pay damages under liability for eviction.
