When seeking an answer to this question, we instinctively turn to Article 363 of the Civil Code, which deals with the methods of redressing damage. And so, in accordance with the aforementioned provision:
- 1. Redress for damage shall be effected, at the choice of the injured party, either by restoring the previous state of affairs or by payment of an appropriate sum of money. However, if restoration of the previous state of affairs is impossible or would entail excessive difficulties or costs for the party liable, the injured party’s claim shall be limited to payment in money.
- 2. If compensation is to be paid in money, the amount of compensation shall be determined according to prices prevailing on the date the compensation is determined, unless special circumstances require that prices prevailing at another time be taken as the basis.
Further on, we have, for example, provisions governing tort and contractual liability regimes.
None of these provisions explicitly provide for a method of redress involving the payment of a sum of money corresponding to the anticipated costs of remedying the defect (damage) to the item.
Is such a possibility therefore non-existent?
No, the principle that damages may only be compensated for actual losses is subject to exceptions, and the evolving interpretation of the law seems to justify the conclusion that, over the years, such claims will be made more and more frequently. Such a possibility has been widely accepted in the context of claims for compensation for damage related to vehicle damage brought against an insurer under civil liability insurance (so-called monetary restitution – see, for example, the resolution of the seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court of 17 November 2011, III CZP 5/11, OSNC 2012, No. 3, item 28, and the resolution of the Supreme Court of 24 August 2017, III CZP 20/17, OSNC 2018, No. 6, item 56, and the judgments cited therein).
In recent years, this practice has also been observed in relation to defects in premises or buildings (cf. judgments of the Supreme Court of 6 February 2018, IV CSK 83/17, unpublished, of 14 December 2018, I CSK 695/17, OSNC-ZD 2020,
- A, item 8, and of 8 March 2019, III CSK 106/17, unpublished).
Such claims are being brought with increasing frequency, yet it remains difficult to unequivocally classify this method of redress in light of civil law provisions which provide for the possibility of claiming reimbursement of foreseeable costs only in the case of substitute performance (cf. Article 480 § 1 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 1049 § 1, sentence 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; cf. the resolution of the Supreme Court of 17 February 2016, III CZP 106/15, OSNC 2017, No. 2, item 13, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 February 2018, IV CSK 286/17, unpublished).
However, it follows from certain judgments that the position justifying the formulation of claims for payment of a sum of money corresponding to the anticipated costs of the damage is based on difficulties in estimating the damage (cf. judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 March 2019, III CSK 106/17) understood in accordance with the differential method, as the difference between the value of a defect-free (undamaged) item and a defective (damaged) item, linked to the individual nature of the item and the defects (damage) themselves, and rendering the comparative method—often used in estimating damage—ineffective (useless).
It is pointed out that the recognition of the targeted and economically justified costs of remedying a defect or damage to an item (services and labour) as reliable for determining the amount of damage is, in fact, intended to satisfy the application of the differential method and should not give rise to doubt, especially in relation to new items, where there is no need to take into account their existing wear and tear. (Supreme Court ruling of 18 August 2020, I CSK 98/20, LEX No. 3047501).
It therefore falls to us, as legal representatives, to contribute to the development of this line of case law, which is favourable to our clients.
Frequently asked questions
Can I demand payment of a monetary sum corresponding to the costs of repairing a defect in an item?
Yes, although the Civil Code does not expressly provide for such a form of damage compensation, court practice increasingly allows claims for payment of an amount corresponding to the anticipated costs of defect removal. This is particularly visible in cases concerning vehicle damage and defects in premises or buildings. The court recognizes such claims when the comparative method of damage assessment fails due to the individual nature of the damage.
What is the legal basis for demanding coverage of repair costs in advance?
The basis is the evolving interpretation of provisions on liability for damages, which allows for demanding payment of a monetary sum instead of restoration to the previous state. The Supreme Court indicates that recognizing the costs of defect removal as determinative for the amount of damage aims to apply the differential method. This solution is intended to satisfy the actual loss of value of the item, especially when it is new and does not require consideration of wear and tear.
Is demanding repair for money admissible in every case of item damage?
The admissibility of such a claim depends on the circumstances of the specific case, particularly on the difficulty of assessing damage using the comparative method. The court may consider the costs of defect removal as determinative if they are purposeful and economically justified. This is particularly preferred in relation to new items, where there is no need to consider existing wear and tear.
What are examples of cases in which the court awards compensation to cover repair costs?
Court practice, including Supreme Court rulings, increasingly awards such claims in cases of damage resulting from vehicle damage. Similarly, the number of cases concerning defects in residential premises and buildings is growing. In these cases, the court recognizes that payment of a monetary sum corresponding to repair costs is an adequate form of damage compensation.
A dispute or proceedings on the horizon?
That is where most conversations with a lawyer begin. A consultation is paid, PLN 600 net. You pay for a real opinion: whether you have a legal problem, what you can do about it and roughly what it costs. It ties you to nothing further, and you do not need to know the law, that part is on us.
- 1 Talk
You tell us what is going on, in your own words.
- 2 What next
We tell you your options and what it costs.
- 3 We act
You give the go-ahead and the matter is ours.
HWW Hewelt Wojnowski Lindner i Wspólnicy is a Warsaw law firm advising businesses and public entities. We combine experience in commercial law, energy, tax, data protection and litigation to deliver solutions tailored to our clients’ business realities.
About the firm →
