Search for cases

The present decision deals with a damages claim for professional liability brought by a Czech company (AR electric s.r.o., the Claimant) against its former Czech attorneys and their insurer (the Respondents).

The underlying transaction in respect of which the attorneys had provided (allegdly faulty) advice was the purchase of a second-hand car by the Czech Claimant (as buyer) from a Germany company (as seller). After a defect in the vehicle had emerged, the Czech buyer engaged the Czech law firm which also employed lawyers admitted in Germany. The law firm opined that German domestic law applied to the sales transaction. Taking into account a limitation of liability clause contained in the sales contract, the law firm further opined that the buyer did not have the right to immediately terminate the sales contract under German law, and recommended that the buyer have the car repaired by the seller. The car was eventually repaired and returned to the buyer, but this process took significantly longer than expected, leaving the buyer without the possibility to use the car in the meantime.

Against this background, the buyer sued its (former) attorneys for damages in the present proceedings. The Court of First Instance had held that the advising attorney had been incorrect in opining that German domestic law applied to the sales contract, because the contract was in fact a CISG contract. Nevertheless, the Court had ruled that it was a further precondition for the attorney's professional liability that the buyer (as client) had proven that the wrong legal advice given that been the cause of the buyer's loss, which in turn required proof that the buyer's would have had the right to avoid the contract under the CISG (Art. 49(1)(a) and Art. 25 CISG). As the buyer had failed to demonstrate the latter factor, the Court of First Instance had dismissed the claim for professional liability due to the lack of proven causality.

In the present appellate decision, the Municipal Court Prague affirmed.