The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family, Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a judgment of the Court of First Instance, which decided to reject a lawsuit filed by a company against its former sales official, demanding that he pay 100,000 dirhams to it as compensation for his subcontracting work with competing companies.
In the details, a company filed a lawsuit against a former employee of it, demanding that he pay 100,000 dirhams to it in material and moral compensation for the damage it suffered, noting that the defendant was working for a sales supervisor, and he was concerned with communicating with customers, setting prices, and he By deceiving the company that there is an order for the benefit of a company for 88 thousand dirhams, however, the company’s employees discovered at the time of delivery of the agreed goods that the invoice was in the name of another company, and it was discovered that the employee works for his own account subcontracting, after the company gave him full confidence, which led to damages Material and moral.
A court of first instance dismissed the case as it was, and obliged the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, based on the fact that the case papers were devoid of evidence that the defendant, during his work period, was in agreement with companies competing with the sub-plaintiff, with which the case is based on an incorrect basis of fact.
The company was not satisfied with the ruling, and appealed against it, complaining about the ruling by mistake in applying the law, and violating what is established in the documents, with the peremptory evidence and the documents submitted by the appellant on the availability of damages requiring compensation, as he obtains the goods at a price less than their basic price, and then sells them at multiples of the prices to customers company, and gets the price difference for his own account.
The Court of Appeal stated that it is legally established that the plaintiff must prove his claim, noting that the company provided copies of receipt vouchers and account statements from which the court cannot prove that the employee was selling supplies to a company other than the one with which the contract was contracted, and the company did not ask for an investigation of its claim. By the means of evidence accepted by the law, and it is free to reject it in its case, and the court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter by rejecting it and upholding the appealed decision, and obliging the appellant to pay the expenses.
#company #accuses #sales #officer #profiteering #subselling #goods