Recenzija, Prikaz slučaja
Obligation to Pay the Berthing Fee after Termination of Berthing Contract
Vesna Skorupan Wolff
Sažetak
The berth user (the defendant in the proceedings) terminated the berthing contract but left the boat on a dry berth in the marina. The marina, as the berth service provider (the plaintiff in the proceedings), sought payment of the berthing fee for use of the dry berth at the daily berth rate and the cost of the boat stand on the dry berth, plus VAT. The defendant claimed that the berthing fee could not be calculated on the basis of the plaintiff’s price list because the parties were not in a contractual relationship and there was no evidence that the defendant had received the plaintiff’s general terms and conditions of the contract. The court concluded that although a written berthing contract had not been concluded for the disputed period, by leaving the boat in the marina the defendant had accepted the plaintiff’s general terms and conditions (price list) for the subsequent period. Those terms were not unknown to him, not only in view of their long-standing contractual relationship, but also because they had been publicly available (Articles 673.j, 673.r and 673.t of the Maritime Code). The mere fact that the boat was in a dry berth, and not in the sea, does not affect the defendant’s obligation to pay the berthing fee owed on that basis. The berth user is liable for the berthing fee regardless of whether the boat is moored in the sea or is in a dry berth of the marina of which the plaintiff is the concessionaire.
Ključne riječi
Hrčak ID:
353364
URI
Datum izdavanja:
12.11.2026.
Posjeta: 0 *