Summary

Subsection 101 (2) of the Law of Obligations Act provides a rule that an obligee may resort to any legal remedy separately or simultaneously to all legal remedies that arise from law or a contract and can be invoked simultaneously, unless otherwise provided by law. Only such legal remedies cannot be resorted to simultaneously that substantially preclude each other.

In general, Estonian legal literature and judicial practices support the opinion that the obligee may reduce the price without submitting a claim of performance of obligations or without granting a further deadline for performing the obligations to the obligor beforehand. At the same time, both the Supreme Court and commentators of the Law of Obligations Act have noted that in certain cases price reduction may be possible only after the obligee has granted a further deadline for performance to the obligor.

This article examines whether price reduction is in hierarchical relations with other legal remedies in Estonian legislation. The article also analyses whether it is sufficient for balancing the rights of the obligee and the obligor that the obligee may use price reduction as the first legal remedy, although such a right of the obligee is limited by the possibility of the obligor to cure his or her violation of obligations. This article also analyses the use of which legal remedies precludes the possibility of the obligee to reduce the price and the use of which legal remedies preserves such possibility.