Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 2:09:30 GMT -5
The ruling considers the contractual relations established between MASER and SCPTI as a unitary whole that involves SAP ESPAÑA as a supplier with the responsibility required of its implementing partner SCPTI for its failure in the implementation process, said responsibility being equally applicable to the German company SAP. HE.
In this regard, the ruling says that it is not possible to distinguish between the function of one and the other , as they would have acted as a unit (SAP ESPAÑA is a 100% subsidiary of SAP SE, and acts on its behalf), and this as consequence of the relationship established between SAP ESPAÑA and the client (MASER), to whom it indicated who would be the partner chosen for the implementation (SCPTI) with which it Fax Lists committed to supporting the process at all times , thereby assuming the consequences of the error in their choice and/or the lack of supervision of their work , when, ultimately, the purpose of the contracts concluded with SCPTI is the establishment of the direct relationship between the client and SAP ESPAÑA and SAP SE, as owner and controller of the software, to the point of being able to dispense with the intermediary, both to continue the implementation tasks and subsequent maintenance tasks, in addition to any possible improvements, extensions or modifications.
As justified by the ruling, which highlights the jurisprudential doctrine contained in the Supreme Court ruling of 03/11/2020, “the consideration of contracts as units absolutely independent of each other , which do not produce effects with respect to those who have not intervened in their granting , did not generate special problems when the Civil Code was promulgated (article 1257),… However, when the economic structure of society changed, and mass production became widespread, this conception of contracts as completely independent entities, without effect some against third parties, entered into a crisis , especially when it was applied to some economic relationships, moving from commissioning to being placed on the market en masse, eliminating the individualized nature of the acquired object and gaining relevance in its adequacy to the generic description.
with which it was put on the market and advertised; ..., this is what happened in the construction and massive sale of real estate , where the inadequacies of the regulation of the construction contract by adjustment or lump sum price and the principle of relativity of the contract were highlighted, and which led the Supreme Court to exception to this principle and address the existing connection between the work contract entered into between the promoter and the contractor and/or the architect, and the subsequent purchase and sale contract of the property entered into between the promoter and a third party, so that it extended to the buyer the legitimacy to exercise the action that the promoter had against the contractor or the architect based on article 1591 CC.”
In this regard, the ruling says that it is not possible to distinguish between the function of one and the other , as they would have acted as a unit (SAP ESPAÑA is a 100% subsidiary of SAP SE, and acts on its behalf), and this as consequence of the relationship established between SAP ESPAÑA and the client (MASER), to whom it indicated who would be the partner chosen for the implementation (SCPTI) with which it Fax Lists committed to supporting the process at all times , thereby assuming the consequences of the error in their choice and/or the lack of supervision of their work , when, ultimately, the purpose of the contracts concluded with SCPTI is the establishment of the direct relationship between the client and SAP ESPAÑA and SAP SE, as owner and controller of the software, to the point of being able to dispense with the intermediary, both to continue the implementation tasks and subsequent maintenance tasks, in addition to any possible improvements, extensions or modifications.
As justified by the ruling, which highlights the jurisprudential doctrine contained in the Supreme Court ruling of 03/11/2020, “the consideration of contracts as units absolutely independent of each other , which do not produce effects with respect to those who have not intervened in their granting , did not generate special problems when the Civil Code was promulgated (article 1257),… However, when the economic structure of society changed, and mass production became widespread, this conception of contracts as completely independent entities, without effect some against third parties, entered into a crisis , especially when it was applied to some economic relationships, moving from commissioning to being placed on the market en masse, eliminating the individualized nature of the acquired object and gaining relevance in its adequacy to the generic description.
with which it was put on the market and advertised; ..., this is what happened in the construction and massive sale of real estate , where the inadequacies of the regulation of the construction contract by adjustment or lump sum price and the principle of relativity of the contract were highlighted, and which led the Supreme Court to exception to this principle and address the existing connection between the work contract entered into between the promoter and the contractor and/or the architect, and the subsequent purchase and sale contract of the property entered into between the promoter and a third party, so that it extended to the buyer the legitimacy to exercise the action that the promoter had against the contractor or the architect based on article 1591 CC.”