A court ruling determined that the agreement signed between the Municipality of Bariloche and the Bariloche Children and Young Singers Choir in 2007 continues in force. Therefore, the municipal executive must cancel the debt it maintains with the institution.
Although the choral group represents the city since its foundation in 1969, through an agreement, the Municipality of Bariloche and the Civil Association agreed a monthly allowance to cover the cost of activities, performances and rehearsals in 2007.
Ten years later, a discussion arose between the parties regarding the duration and conditions of renewal of the agreement. At that time, the choral entity sued the Municipality and the case fell to the Bariloche Court of Appeals.
After analyzing the proposals, it was defined that the agreement is in force and ordered the Municipality to pay the debtadded to default interest on unpaid balances for each period.
The lawsuit mentions that the agreement provided an automatic extension every five years. And the only way to prevent this extension was a reliable communication from one of the parties that had to be made at least 90 days before the expiration date.
The municipality requested that the claim be rejected, considering that the agreement was extended only once in 2012. It added that the association “did not prove that it had fulfilled its obligations, which were to hold two annual concerts and present accounting books.”
In this case, the judgment highlighted that, in 2007, The parties agreed to a term of five years. and established that “it will be automatically extended for the same terms, if there is no reliable communication by either party with a minimum of 90 days prior to their expiration.”
The Court considered that “from the very text of the agreement it appears that the will of both parties was to carry out more than one extension. When using the plural (same terms, expiration of the same) it is evident that they contemplated successive and indefinite extensions until anyone reliably communicated the termination with the agreed advance”.
It also considered a resolution of the municipal government of 2019 in which the payment of the amounts attributable to all months of 2017 was provided. “It implies an implicit recognition that the agreement had been extended for the second time.specifies the failure.
To comment on this note you must have your digital access.
Subscribe to add your opinion!
Subscribe
