TC
SUPREME
LAW FIRM
Case No. 1997/5184
Decision No. 1997/5705
Date: September 15, 1997
Issuance and settlement of an invoice – determination of whether the amount has been paid
The burden of proof lies with the defendant, who admits that the amount stated on the invoice has not been paid.
OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL INVOICE IF EVIDENCE EXISTS
Summary:
The plaintiff-seller alleged that the defendant-buyer failed to pay for the bread purchased, while the defendant argued that the amount was paid via invoices. The parties submitted their evidence, and it was determined that the documents under review were photocopies. If the parties rely on this evidence, the original documents must be produced, and it must be determined whether the invoices are closed or open. If closed invoices are submitted, it must be presumed that these invoices were paid by the defendant buyer. Otherwise, if the invoices are open, it must be presumed that the sales price was not paid, and the burden of proof rests with the defendant.
Case:
Due to the dispute between the parties, the appeal review of Decision No. 255-26 issued by the Havsa Criminal Court of First Instance on March 6, 1997, was accepted by the plaintiff’s attorney; after reviewing the documents in the file, the proceedings were deemed necessary and approved.
Decision:
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the price of the bread sold and delivered to the defendant company had not been paid, and requested that the defendant be ordered to pay 174,220,000 pounds with 54% interest, and that the claim for 40% compensation be dismissed due to the disputed nature of the case.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff were closed invoices and that the expenses had been paid as evidenced in the case file, and requested that the case be dismissed.
Based on the evidence gathered and the scope of the case file, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence other than the invoices and shipping notes, and that the case could not be proven.
The plaintiff’s attorney objected to the decision.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had not paid for the bread purchased by the buyer, while the defendant claimed that the amount had been paid via the invoices. If the sale is for cash, it is clear that the purchase price is to be paid upon delivery of the goods, and in this case, the plaintiff must prove the claim that the price was not paid. If it is determined that the price is to be paid after the delivery of the goods in question, the buyer must also prove that the purchase price was paid.
The parties submitted their evidence, and it was determined that the documents under review were photocopies. Given that the parties relied on this evidence, the originals must be produced, and it must be determined whether the invoices are open or closed. If closed invoices are submitted, it must be presumed that these invoices were paid by the defendant buyer. Otherwise, that is, if the invoices are open, it must be presumed that the sales price has not been paid and the burden of proof falls on the defendant.
If the parties rely on ledgers, these ledgers must also be examined through submission and expert review, and a decision must be rendered based on the findings; a dismissal of the case due to insufficient examination is not considered correct, and the decision of the Criminal Court of First Instance must be reversed.
Conclusion:
For the reasons explained above, upon the plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of prepaid expenses, it was decided by unanimous vote on September 15, 1997, to reverse the Local Court’s decision and return the case to the plaintiff.