In the Commercial Court, the hearing should continue today regarding the lawsuit filed by the Canadian company Eviana Health Corporation (EHC), which in a consortium with the company Montenegro Bio Science (MBS) from Podgorica and Ramel from Nikšić was supposed to build facilities for the cultivation of industrial hemp and the extraction of CBD oil from its flower. in the halls of the former "Obod" factory.
On March 4, 2020, the capital of Cetinje concluded a contract for the lease of the "Oboda" real estate with this consortium for 30 years.
The Montenegrin companies gave up on this job, which is why EHC claims that it was cheated and is demanding compensation of 200.000 euros, out of a total of 300.000 that it paid as a bank guarantee for this job on behalf of all three companies.
Eviana is asking the Commercial Court to oblige Prijestonica Cetinje (the third defendant) to terminate the lease agreement with the consortium through a judgment on the lawsuit.
According to the business plan, the consortium was supposed to invest 10 million euros and employ 100 workers. However, the local parliament terminated the contract with the consortium in May 2021 due to non-execution of the contract and inability to finance the project. When signing the contract, the consortium undertook to invest at least 10 million euros in a period of two and a half years and to allocate at least 10 percent of the realized net profit to the account of Prijestonica. The tenant undertook to pay the monthly rent as well, that is, to pay 660 euros annually to the checking account of Prijestonica, which in the end did not happen.
According to the details of the lawsuit, the contract on the consortium stipulated that MBS should be the holder of the guarantee for this work, but since it did not do so, the Canadian company paid 300 euros to the Capital of Cetinje on behalf of all three partners, which were supposed to serve as cash. collateral for the guarantee.
The lawsuit further states that the corona is coming and that the Montenegrin members of the collegium are giving statements that they are leaving the consortium and that they do not want to continue the project.
"Given the fact that the plaintiff paid 300.000 euros for himself and on behalf of the defendants, he has the right to return a proportionate amount of money. The contract on the consortium (Article 4.3) stipulates that the members of the consortium are jointly and severally liable not only for the assumed obligations towards third parties, but also for all other obligations arising from the offer and from the contract for the lease of real estate that is the subject of the tender. Therefore, it is a question of mutual joint and several obligations when it comes to all possible mutual claims", the lawsuit states.
300 thousand euros were paid by the Canadian company Prijestonici Cetinje on behalf of all three companies, as a bank guarantee for this job
EHC also believes that it has the right to return part of the money according to the Law on Obligations (Article 217, paragraph 3 - acquisition without basis - unjustified enrichment) which stipulates that when a part of one person's property is transferred in any way to the property of another person , as well as when something is received with regard to a basis that has not been fulfilled or that has subsequently ceased, there is an obligation to return it.
"Even if the court does not accept the basis of the plaintiff's claim as unjustified enrichment but as compensation for damages, that circumstance does not change the plaintiff's right to collect according to the Civil Procedure Act (Article 187), which stipulates that the court will act on the claim even when the plaintiff did not state legal the basis of the claim, and if the plaintiff stated a legal basis, the court is not bound by it", states the EHC in the lawsuit.
The partners of the Canadian firm did not state why they abandoned the investment
The Canadian company also points out that due to the withdrawal of the other two members of the consortium from the project, it suffered material damage of 100.000 euros, which was its proportionate amount of the total paid 300.000 euros in accordance with the conditions of the public invitation.
"The basis of compensation derives from Article 148 of the Law on Obligations, which prescribes that whoever causes damage to another, is obliged to compensate it if he does not prove that the damage occurred without his fault and the provisions of Article 152 of that law, according to which the fault exists when the damage caused damage intentionally or negligently. In the letters of the two defendants, where they express their inability to stay in the project, the reasons for staying are not stated, so it should be considered that the loss of money is solely their fault," the lawsuit says.
Bonus video:
