Elevator maintenance

This case deals with a typical contract for “ preventive maintenance ” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is called in law a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a community of owners because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term expired. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that unpaid invoices were outstanding ; and, on the other, a compensation for “breaking” the contract early.

The conflict revolved around two clauses of the contract where one set a duration of 3 years and the other required notice of 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that these conditions were abusive concerning a consumer (in this case, the community itself).

Initially, the court sided with the company, which condemned the community to pay both the compensation for early termination and the outstanding invoices (in addition to interest and costs).

However, on appeal, the Provincial Court of Málaga changed the criteria, declaring null and void due to abusive the 3-year duration clause and the 180-day notice clause. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are not valid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for terminating the contract early. Nevertheless, the community must pay what it actually owed, the outstanding invoices for services already rendered.

The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome , the duration and notice clauses are considered null and void, no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only unpaid invoices are owed. If you find yourself in a similar situation, our professionals can analyze the clauses of your community's service contract in order to take the necessary actions to defend your interests