Current

Falsified evidence in court case leads to litigation costs order of over €25k In a previous blog post about the violation of the duty of truth (article 21 Rv) it was written, “if you fool the judge, you will go down on your face.” This was not an empty slogan. If you knowingly provide inaccurate or incomplete information in a proceeding, you will run...

Three blogs have already appeared on this website about the recent judgment of the District Court of North Holland (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:6641). The first blog was about the dissolution of the purchase agreement due to severe flooding. The buyer successfully dissolved the purchase agreement on the grounds of non-conformity. The second blog was about the enforceability of the judgment. More specifically, it was about...

Dissolution of purchase agreement not provisionally enforceable, now what? In a recent ruling, the North Holland District Court (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:6641) ruled in favor of the buyers of a leaking apartment. They were justified in rescinding the contract of sale of the apartment due to non-conformity, the court ruled. In addition, the seller must compensate the buyers' damages. Despite the positive verdict,...

Severe flooding leads to dissolution of purchase agreement The District Court of Noord-Holland (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:6641) earlier this month dissolved the purchase agreement of a house in Bloemendaal due to severe flooding in the basement. The leakage was such that the house could not be used normally. The buyers, an elderly couple of 76 and 86 years old) dissolved the purchase agreement because of that...

Deal or no deal? Agreeing on the essentials of the purchase agreement That a deal is not always a deal, you could read earlier in our blog about the drunk buyer of a golf course. That deal was not valid due to drunkenness. From a Rotterdam District Court ruling published today (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:7289), even the...

Court lifts seizure: seizer concealed information In a recent judgment by the District Court of Northern Netherlands on April 18, 2025, a seizure of a supplier's products was lifted. The preliminary relief judge ruled in summary proceedings that the garnishee had concealed essential information in the attachment request and for that reason had acted in violation of...