Application of the Penalty for Delay in the Delivery of the Object of Sale

The judgment under consideration in this paper is discussed from three points of view. From the structural point of view, from the substantive point of view, and the linguistic point of view. In the structural analysis of the judgment, the deficiency of the procedure and the confusion in the determination of the relief and the defendant are questioned. In the substantive analysis of the judgment, the application of the ambiguous term "in any case", the failure to describe the evidence for the claim, the inappropriate referral to legal articles, and the approach of the issuing court to the matter of retardation of the delivery of the object of sale are critically examined. In this point, the necessity of awarding the delay penalty claimed by the plaintiff is analyzed in two scenarios of delay damages, under the title of the performance bond and under the title of the necessity of discharge. Besides, it has been considered from the standpoint that the interests of the object of sale should not be granted to the illegal possessor and the corrupt sequence of assumption of its granting is of interest. In the part of the criticism of the writing of the judgment, taking into account that the judgment is an official document and in some instances, it is permanent and can be studied by future generations, the defects of the writing of the said judgment are criticized.