Khaberni - The Federal Court in Ajman dismissed the appeal filed by a businesswoman, demanding financial compensation of AED 100,000, claiming she incurred financial losses due to a breach by a company she contracted with - for the supply of gift boxes - failing to meet the contract terms.
The claimant presented to the court evidence of the damage, which was a copy of a “message” she had sent to one of her clients, in which she apologized for her inability to fulfill her commitment to him and confirmed that she had to refund the amount she had received from him due to the cancellation of the order.
For its part, the court stated that the apology letter does not constitute legal evidence for her claim, adding that the lawsuit lacked any actual proof of loss, or causation between the delay and the compensation sought.
The details of the case go back to the businesswoman filing a commercial lawsuit against a private institution she contracted with to manufacture and supply about 150 gift boxes, with a total value of AED 5750. She explained that she had paid part of the agreed sum, yet was surprised by the non-execution of the supply on the scheduled date, leading to her breaching distribution contracts signed with other clients and having to return their money and cancel their orders.
The claimant asked the court to compel the defendant institution to compensate her for the losses incurred, indicating that she had sent an apology message to one of her clients to justify the delay in delivering an agreed order.
She presented a copy of the message as evidence of the damage incurred.
In contrast, the institution (the other party in the case) presented legal defenses requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit, asserting that they had fulfilled part of the agreement, and that the attached invoices prove the supply of sufficient quantities to cover the claimant's obligations with her clients, pointing out that she “did not present any evidence of her having suffered actual damage or direct financial loss”.
The court clarified in its ruling that “the correspondence used by the claimant is not sufficient legal evidence since it originates from one side only and lacks official documentation or a specific date, which diminishes its evidential value”, and the lawsuit papers did not include proof that the commercial contracts made by the claimant were canceled due to the delay or partial failure to supply.
The court emphasized that damages in commercial contracts must be proven with evidence and documents, noting that “mere delay in fulfilling obligations is not enough to decree compensation, unless clear evidence of direct loss due to breach is presented”.
Ultimately, the court decided to uphold the primary judgment which dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the claimant to pay the costs.
