News4 mins ago
Will I have to pay costs?
I have been attempting to sue a French trader in the County Court. His solicitor has just sent me an Amended Defence in which he says that the trader is only employed by the company and that I am claiming against the wrong party. He says that - should I continue the claim - they will have it struck out. He also says that they will bring the court's attention to the issue of costs of defending the matter on behalf of the trader "who, as you have been informed, was not a party to the contract." I think he means that they will pursue costs if I continue to press my case from now on (as I have only just "been informed" of the situation ) though, maybe he will seek costs against me, anyway. Does anyone know what generally happens in circumstances like this? It looks like I'll have to drop my case as I can't afford to take any more risks but I am - obviously! - hoping that I won't have to pay for his solicitor, to this point. Needless to say, I am a genuinely aggrived customer and have a cast-iron case, morally. T(he Defendant is weaseling out on a technicality because he is a one-man business and there's no-one else I could sue.) But that doesn't count for much under the law. Aaaaghh!!
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Amilcar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the UK, this would be the difference between either suing a limited company, or a director of that limited company. Your contract was with the company, not the individual. Even though you were dealing with the individual (who was acting on behalf of the company).
Now I know nothing about French company structures, but if it works the same over there as here, then you ARE suing the wrong entity. Hence their attempt at weaselling.
Now I know nothing about French company structures, but if it works the same over there as here, then you ARE suing the wrong entity. Hence their attempt at weaselling.
Thanks for the answer. I was claiming against Fred Bloggs t/a Fred Bloggs Car Collection and no-one pointed out that this was wrong. during12 months of dispute. Only weeks ago, the Defendant 's solicitor submitted draft directions for Court approval - getting almost everything that he asked for - so it hadn't occurred to the Defence until they formulated the Amended Defence during the past couple of weeks,. Since they have only just invoked this, surely thet are partly to blame for causing/incurring defence costs themselves by not striking out my Claim at an earlier stage?
I don't know - someone like Themas may be able to answer this, if he is watching.
Just to say that in the UK, a 'trading as' identity is a business name - not a legal entity. It may either apply to a limited company t/a XYZ , or a self-employed person or partnership t/a PQR. I've no idea if it is the same in France. Now assuming this bloke is a limited liability company, that's where this has gone wrong. One cannot sue the individual trading as his limited company, you'd have to sue the company. Sorry.
Just to say that in the UK, a 'trading as' identity is a business name - not a legal entity. It may either apply to a limited company t/a XYZ , or a self-employed person or partnership t/a PQR. I've no idea if it is the same in France. Now assuming this bloke is a limited liability company, that's where this has gone wrong. One cannot sue the individual trading as his limited company, you'd have to sue the company. Sorry.
1 to 3 of 3
