All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017【Agreed Amount etc.; Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Method of interpreting the parties’ intent as declared in an instrument [2] Meaning of the principle of trust and good faith Requirements for denying an exercise of right on grounds of contravention of said principle [3] In a case where Company A, a mobile carrier: (a) had a duty under its agreement with Company B, a landline telephone operator, to provide the type of connection as requested by Company B so as to enable Company B to minimize its use of Company A’s connection facilities; (b) nonetheless refused the request; (c) and instead had Company B continue to use a loop around connection, thereby compelling it to use additional connection facilities for the loop around segment even after the point at which Company B could have had access to the requested type of connection had Company A not refused; and (d) billed Company B claiming the additional connection call charges, the case holding that granting the claim would be unreasonable in view of the principle of trust and good faith [4] In the event of a disparity between what the declarant of intent had in mind and what the other party had in mind, method of interpreting the intent declared [5] Purport of the provision under Article 496 of the Civil Act, and whether this provision shall be applicable to an offset against damage liability arising from an intentional default (negative in principle) In cases where an intentional act concurrently constitutes tort and default so that the damage claim arising from a tort competes with the damage claim arising from a default, whether said provision shall be applied by analogy, thereby prohibiting the obligor from establishing a claim against the obligee based on an offset against the damage liability arising from an intentional default as well (affirmative) |
|
