About us

MATTER:

Dispute settlement regarding advertising service agreement  

CLIENT:

A Japanese-invested company leading in the field of outdoor advertising 

BACKGROUND:

The Client is a leading corporation in the field of outdoor advertising (OOH) in Vietnam, an advertising service provider for large corporations as well as other multinational companies. In addition to the main activity of outdoor advertising (hologram, projection, transparent screen, ..) the Client also provides the service of measuring the effectiveness of outdoor advertising.

In 2018, the Client has signed an Advertising Service Contract with Company C specializing in providing furniture and interior decoration. Accordingly, Company C appoints the Client to provide advertising services on the reverse projection screen for Company C. During the performance of the Contract, Company C suddenly unilaterally terminated the Contract for the reason that the Client did not comply with the requirement of the Contract. The Client believes that they have fully and properly performed the obligations arising from the Contract. Therefore, Company C has unilaterally terminated the Contract before the expiration unlawfully, constituting a violation of the Contract and causing damage to the Client. Hence, the Client sued Company C to claim the compensation that the parties have agreed to in the Contract, with an amount of approximately 3 billion VND (150,000USD).

CHALLENGES:

In this case, the Client was at a disadvantage when installing all their assets, which are high-valued machines and projection screens in the business location of Company C, leading to a dispute arising, Company C illegally seized the Client's property to put pressure on the negotiation to terminate the contract.

The loopholes existing from the time of signing the Contract combined with the contract amendments during the implementation process that are not in writing are also challenges when disputes arise between the parties.

The Client also faces difficulties in proving its damages, including actual damages and direct profits that the Client would have been entitled to without the breach by Company C. Besides, in practice, if the Client cannot prove the actual damage, it is difficult for the Court to accept the claim for damages.

The Client has repeatedly contacted Company C to resolve the case, but Company C was not willing to solve the case, so the case was prolonged.

SOLLUTIONS:

After reviewing the documents provided by the Client, ATIM LAW FIRM provided consultation and acted on behalf of the Client to send a written request to Company C demanding the return of the assets to the Client before negotiating the terms and conditions for termination of the contract. In this letter, ATIM LAW FIRM analyzed the signs of the criminal offense of seizing the property of Company C, forcing Company C to return the property to the Client as well as warning of legal consequences if Company C intentionally occupies and does not cooperate. After that, Company C returned all the assets that were in their possession to the Client.

However, Company C did not agree to compensate for damages of the Client, so, for and on behalf of our Client, ATIM LAW FIRM conducted a lawsuit procedure to a competent court to request Company C to compensate for the damages incurred to the Client as agreed in the Contract and the profit that would have been entitled if the violation of Company C.

For the damages as agreed by the parties in the contract, although there is no document proving the actual damages, the lawyer of ATIM LAW FIRM has precise arguments and analysis to request the Court to force Company C to compensate as agreed upon by the parties in the Contract.

RESULTS:

The Court in both the first instance and appellate level accepted the arguments and requests of ATIM LAW FIRM’s lawyer, and accepted a part of the claims, forcing Company C to compensate the Client with an approximate amount of 1.5 billion VND as agreed by the parties in the Contract.