Elevator maintenance

This case deals with a typical contract of “ preventive maintenance ” of elevators, which are not fulfilled in a single day, but are provided month by month (what is legally called a successive contract). A maintenance company sued a homeowners' association because it decided to terminate the contract before the agreed term ended. The company claimed two things, on one hand, that it be paid invoices that 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 to notify 180 days (six months) in advance if one wanted to terminate the contract. The community argued that those conditions were abusive regarding a consumer (in this case, the community itself).

At first instance, the court ruled in favor of 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 criterion, declared null and abusive the clause of duration of 3 years and the notice period of 180 days. What is the practical consequence? If those clauses are not valid, the company cannot rely on them to demand a penalty or compensation for having terminated 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 , no compensation is due for ending the contract early, and only the 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