[ad_1]
The heart of the battle was an agreement signed in 2015 between Coop and I.K. Good luck, the owner of the price chain. The agreement provided for the transfer of 43 Coop food stores to Base Price.
This occurred after Coop entered into an agreement to purchase Ica 553 stores in Norway. The agreement did not satisfy the Norwegian competition authority and ordered Coop to sell 93 stores to maintain competition in the market.
43 stores were taken over by Base Price, while the rest went to Norgesgruppen. In order to complete the purchase, Coop has provided a credit of NOK 74.3 million at the basic price, which will be refunded later.
Several of the stores were closed later, and Bunnpris claimed that some of the stores contained flaws. As a result, they chose to withhold portions of the sum.
– Although the breaches are known to us shortly after the signing, we have chosen to complete the transaction so as not to cover the entire Ica-Coop agreement. We have withheld an amount that we think will cover the gaps, and now Coop has sued us for that amount, "said Christian Lykke, the boss of Bunnpris, earlier this year in DN.
In total, Coop has Required NOK 32.5 million in addition to base price interest rates.
Will Appeal
The verdict has arrived and claims that Base Price must repay 32.5 million kroner. estimate that Coop's costs amount to NOK 1.8 million.
– We are very happy to win our case, and on top of that we have no comments up to date. that we have put ourselves in the judgment, "says Harald Kristiansen, communications manager at Coop.
The basic price warns that they will appeal the verdict.
– We are very and we will appeal. "We believe that Coop deceived us, says Lykke.
Coop was confronted with allegations of happiness referring to the verdict.
In the past, Lykke stated that Coop was holding information before the store was transferred
– I can not go into details, but it is important to know what information was given and what we have seen in the negotiations. This was important information with which Coop was sitting and, as we did not understand, Lykke told DN earlier this year
"Suspended Information"
DN previously explained how the agreement between Coop and Base of the Norwegian Competition Authority on competition in local markets across the country.
The Norwegian group was dedicated to many shops, but in addition to Coop, it was a very dominant player.
– We had a dialogue well beyond the night, and there was talk of appreciation, as it was, said Lykke at DN in 2015.
The list of stores has changed with the negotiations. 19659002] At night, they agreed on the price, and at half-past six the negotiations could be concluded. The basic price was purchased in 43 stores, while the Norgesgruppen received only 50.
Time Press
The Court points out that the agreement was subjected to strong pressure for comply with the requirements of the Norwegian Competition Authority.
– In this context, the Court came to the conclusion that the agreement must be interpreted to mean that Coop has waived liability for latent defects and deficiencies and that it has had access to a such denial of the circumstances taken into account. Disclaimer appears as well thought out and reflected in the price, it is stated in the judgment.
The Tribunal considers that Base Price was in an advantageous bargaining position in the acquisition of the stores
– In addition, the Tribunal stated that Bunnpris had purchased the stores at a price significantly lower than that which would have been better a more accurate evaluation of the individual store. (Terms)
[ad_2]
Source link
