Wednesday, 27. May 2009
Action against Prof.Christer Bengs
dieter vogt, 17:15h
Prof.CHRISTER BENGS
Linkomäki 14,
Espoo 02630
Finland
REQUEST TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE PREMISES
Re: Contract of lease concerning Munga 9, Pärnu
Sept 22th, 2008 West-Estonian Fire Department (Rescue Service) has inspected the performance of the fire safety regulations in the building located by the address Munga 9, Pärnu.
The inspector has ascertained that the all the four heaters (ovens) in the building are broken – there are deep chaps in the ovens walls, exterior has lampblack traces, the stovepipes are cracked. The inspector has ascertained that all the ovens in the building are inflammable and prohibited using of all the ovens (4) before repairing of them.
The fire Department has made the prescription to repair all the ovens in the building and applied compulsory measures.
According to the § 276 of the Contractual Law of the Republic of Estonia a lessor is required to deliver a thing, together with its accessories, to a lessee by the agreed time and in a suitable condition for contractual use and to ensure that the thing is maintained in such condition during the validity of the contract. According to the § 278 of the Contractual Law, if a leased thing is, during the term of a contract, affected with a defect if there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the thing, the lessee may demand that the lessor remove the defect or obstacle pursuant to the provisions of § 279 of this Law.
As the it´s prohibited using of all the ovens, the building is without heating. The contractual use of the leased building is impossible. Thus there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the leased building.
Herewith The Lessee requires that The Lessor removes the defects within two weeks from the making of this request.
Linkomäki 14,
Espoo 02630
Finland
REQUEST TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE PREMISES
Re: Contract of lease concerning Munga 9, Pärnu
Sept 22th, 2008 West-Estonian Fire Department (Rescue Service) has inspected the performance of the fire safety regulations in the building located by the address Munga 9, Pärnu.
The inspector has ascertained that the all the four heaters (ovens) in the building are broken – there are deep chaps in the ovens walls, exterior has lampblack traces, the stovepipes are cracked. The inspector has ascertained that all the ovens in the building are inflammable and prohibited using of all the ovens (4) before repairing of them.
The fire Department has made the prescription to repair all the ovens in the building and applied compulsory measures.
According to the § 276 of the Contractual Law of the Republic of Estonia a lessor is required to deliver a thing, together with its accessories, to a lessee by the agreed time and in a suitable condition for contractual use and to ensure that the thing is maintained in such condition during the validity of the contract. According to the § 278 of the Contractual Law, if a leased thing is, during the term of a contract, affected with a defect if there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the thing, the lessee may demand that the lessor remove the defect or obstacle pursuant to the provisions of § 279 of this Law.
As the it´s prohibited using of all the ovens, the building is without heating. The contractual use of the leased building is impossible. Thus there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the leased building.
Herewith The Lessee requires that The Lessor removes the defects within two weeks from the making of this request.
... comment
dieter vogt,
Wednesday, 27. May 2009, 17:16
Prof.Christer Bengs
Christer Bengs,TKK Helsinki.
You probably know that your colleague Prof. Christer Bengs owns properties in Estonia, you may not know how badly he treats those who do business with him. My Estonian company, Balti Domus OÜ (trading as Primavera Restaurant) made the mistake of renting one of his properties in Pärnu.
At the 4th.of January 2008 I signed a contract to lease from Mr Bengs, for a period of 5 years, restaurant premises in central Pärnu. As soon as I had the keys and started preparations to open the restaurant we found that the premises, as handed over, were absolutely not as promised in the contract and Mr Bengs was therefore in breach of the contract. I was required to spend a lot of money ( about one million Estonian Kroons ) making the repairs and replacements needed to make the building suitable for the contracted purpose and open my restaurant.
Mr Bengs would not discuss the issues.
He has, however, done his best to make my life hell. He tried to have one court order made for repossession, a second application was intended to disconnect me from the water supply and then he made a third in an attempt to force me to pay for required fire security works which are his responsibility as the owner.
Justice was done and all 3 applications failed.
The Restaurant has been closed since the first of November 2008 and I have lost my business because the licence has been revoked from the Pärnu Fire Department due to dangerous stoves, which he has refused to replace, but he still sends me Monthly Invoices for the rent. I travelled to Espoo again at the 21st May, to meet him, but he neither answered the phone nor talked to me. After my friend called from his phone, Mr.Bengs' wife called back after 1 hour but then she pushes the phone down as well.
The court has made it clear that they expect us to negotiate a compromise, but since the first day of rental, Mr Bengs has avoided any discussion of the matter. He prefers to leave the court to spend their valuable time in producing a solution. I even took 2 times the trouble to visit Finland hoping to find him to negotiate an agreement for the court to ratify while he was not to be found, his complaint resulted in a request for me to be interviewed by Mr Knutti of Espoo Police Violent Crimes Division for threats.
Having explained the true situation to the Police I have heard nothing more.
He and his Lawyer also has not appeared in 2 Court appointments on 15th February and 15 April. Next court case is in early July, I hope that if he does not appear this time as well, the court is making decision in my favour without him.
Since first having problems I have met the restaurants proprietor from 2007, and his predecessor who had the premises for several years before that. They both confirm that the stoves were dangerous, the kitchen equipment was defective and the maintenance of the building was neglected by Mr Bengs. They both lost their livelihoods as a result, and both found, just like I did, that Mr Bengs would not discuss the issues or take any action to fulfil his responsibilities.
This shows that he has repeated the same deceitful trick on all of us, over a period of at least 8 years.
You may agree that your colleague’s behaviour is a disgrace.
You probably know that your colleague Prof. Christer Bengs owns properties in Estonia, you may not know how badly he treats those who do business with him. My Estonian company, Balti Domus OÜ (trading as Primavera Restaurant) made the mistake of renting one of his properties in Pärnu.
At the 4th.of January 2008 I signed a contract to lease from Mr Bengs, for a period of 5 years, restaurant premises in central Pärnu. As soon as I had the keys and started preparations to open the restaurant we found that the premises, as handed over, were absolutely not as promised in the contract and Mr Bengs was therefore in breach of the contract. I was required to spend a lot of money ( about one million Estonian Kroons ) making the repairs and replacements needed to make the building suitable for the contracted purpose and open my restaurant.
Mr Bengs would not discuss the issues.
He has, however, done his best to make my life hell. He tried to have one court order made for repossession, a second application was intended to disconnect me from the water supply and then he made a third in an attempt to force me to pay for required fire security works which are his responsibility as the owner.
Justice was done and all 3 applications failed.
The Restaurant has been closed since the first of November 2008 and I have lost my business because the licence has been revoked from the Pärnu Fire Department due to dangerous stoves, which he has refused to replace, but he still sends me Monthly Invoices for the rent. I travelled to Espoo again at the 21st May, to meet him, but he neither answered the phone nor talked to me. After my friend called from his phone, Mr.Bengs' wife called back after 1 hour but then she pushes the phone down as well.
The court has made it clear that they expect us to negotiate a compromise, but since the first day of rental, Mr Bengs has avoided any discussion of the matter. He prefers to leave the court to spend their valuable time in producing a solution. I even took 2 times the trouble to visit Finland hoping to find him to negotiate an agreement for the court to ratify while he was not to be found, his complaint resulted in a request for me to be interviewed by Mr Knutti of Espoo Police Violent Crimes Division for threats.
Having explained the true situation to the Police I have heard nothing more.
He and his Lawyer also has not appeared in 2 Court appointments on 15th February and 15 April. Next court case is in early July, I hope that if he does not appear this time as well, the court is making decision in my favour without him.
Since first having problems I have met the restaurants proprietor from 2007, and his predecessor who had the premises for several years before that. They both confirm that the stoves were dangerous, the kitchen equipment was defective and the maintenance of the building was neglected by Mr Bengs. They both lost their livelihoods as a result, and both found, just like I did, that Mr Bengs would not discuss the issues or take any action to fulfil his responsibilities.
This shows that he has repeated the same deceitful trick on all of us, over a period of at least 8 years.
You may agree that your colleague’s behaviour is a disgrace.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:00
Action against Christer Bengs
Christer Bengs TKK Helsinki
You have told my lawyer that you do not wish to discuss anything, you have ignored the court and all my invitations to meet in my home town. So once again I visited yours yesterday, to follow the court instructions and move the matter forward.
Despite calling, and sending you SMS messages, you did not have enough courtesy to reply. Your arrogance and contempt for the Estonian court, as well as me, are unforgiveable.
I shall not spend more time visiting Espoo just to be ignored by you, it is your opportunity to act now. I shall expect to hear from you within 48 hours offering a firm appointment to meet in Parnu before the middle of next month.
If you won't do so then I shall have to take further action myself. I have taken advice and you can be sure that you won't need to complain to Mr Knutti.
I look forward to hearing from you with a helpful reply
You have told my lawyer that you do not wish to discuss anything, you have ignored the court and all my invitations to meet in my home town. So once again I visited yours yesterday, to follow the court instructions and move the matter forward.
Despite calling, and sending you SMS messages, you did not have enough courtesy to reply. Your arrogance and contempt for the Estonian court, as well as me, are unforgiveable.
I shall not spend more time visiting Espoo just to be ignored by you, it is your opportunity to act now. I shall expect to hear from you within 48 hours offering a firm appointment to meet in Parnu before the middle of next month.
If you won't do so then I shall have to take further action myself. I have taken advice and you can be sure that you won't need to complain to Mr Knutti.
I look forward to hearing from you with a helpful reply
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:01
Action against Christer Bengs
Dear Mr Knuuti,
Thank you for your message which surprised me. I am sorry you are now involved in the civil court case between my company and Mr Bengs, regarding the leasing of business premises in Pärnu,Estonia. I wonder how much background information Mr Bengs has given you?
A year ago I signed a contract to lease from Mr Bengs, for a period of 5 years, a restaurant in Pärnu,Estonia. As soon as I had the keys and started preparing to open the restaurant we soon found that the premises, as handed over, were not as promised in the contract and Mr Bengs was therefore in breach of the contract. I am claiming compensation from him as I spent a lot of money making the building suitable for the contracted purpose.
He has tried to have one court order for repossession, he wanted to disconnect me from water supply and a third to force me to pay for required fire security works which are his responsibility. All applications failed and he has become frustrated. Under a cover of an Proffessor title he has involved you as a further harassment.
The court has made it clear that they expect us to negotiate a compromise, but for several months Mr Bengs has avoided any discussion of the matter, preferring to leave the court to spend their time in producing a solution. All it needs is to have one meeting, each with our lawyers and a British friend of mine who witnessed the original contract, and who discussed the matter for me with Mr Bengs and my lawyer the last time there was a meeting. I have been waiting for him to say he was coming to Estonia so I could set up the meeting.
I did go to Espoo hoping to find him at home to discuss, and later sent the picture to show that I had made the effort to travel and meet him - only to find he was out.
You have been told that:
1). "He claims that you have threatened him in the phone and with text messages."
Anyone can say they were threatened by phone, there is only his word for that.
Please provide me with details of the date, time, originating number and exact words of any threats in text messages.
2). "He also claims that you have send him a picture of his house"
I have explained that to you, did I break any law?
3). "and threatened to come to Finland and beat him"
Details, please, so I know what you have been told and i can answer.
I have no firm plans to visit Finland, so if you feel a statement is needed then I believe you will have to ask your Estonian colleagues to help. Please confirm that you are authorized to request another country's police to interview me, being neither resident in, nor a citizen of, Finland.
Thank you for your message which surprised me. I am sorry you are now involved in the civil court case between my company and Mr Bengs, regarding the leasing of business premises in Pärnu,Estonia. I wonder how much background information Mr Bengs has given you?
A year ago I signed a contract to lease from Mr Bengs, for a period of 5 years, a restaurant in Pärnu,Estonia. As soon as I had the keys and started preparing to open the restaurant we soon found that the premises, as handed over, were not as promised in the contract and Mr Bengs was therefore in breach of the contract. I am claiming compensation from him as I spent a lot of money making the building suitable for the contracted purpose.
He has tried to have one court order for repossession, he wanted to disconnect me from water supply and a third to force me to pay for required fire security works which are his responsibility. All applications failed and he has become frustrated. Under a cover of an Proffessor title he has involved you as a further harassment.
The court has made it clear that they expect us to negotiate a compromise, but for several months Mr Bengs has avoided any discussion of the matter, preferring to leave the court to spend their time in producing a solution. All it needs is to have one meeting, each with our lawyers and a British friend of mine who witnessed the original contract, and who discussed the matter for me with Mr Bengs and my lawyer the last time there was a meeting. I have been waiting for him to say he was coming to Estonia so I could set up the meeting.
I did go to Espoo hoping to find him at home to discuss, and later sent the picture to show that I had made the effort to travel and meet him - only to find he was out.
You have been told that:
1). "He claims that you have threatened him in the phone and with text messages."
Anyone can say they were threatened by phone, there is only his word for that.
Please provide me with details of the date, time, originating number and exact words of any threats in text messages.
2). "He also claims that you have send him a picture of his house"
I have explained that to you, did I break any law?
3). "and threatened to come to Finland and beat him"
Details, please, so I know what you have been told and i can answer.
I have no firm plans to visit Finland, so if you feel a statement is needed then I believe you will have to ask your Estonian colleagues to help. Please confirm that you are authorized to request another country's police to interview me, being neither resident in, nor a citizen of, Finland.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:02
Action against Christer Bengs
Thank you for your email.
You are from the Violent Crimes Division, you know there has been no violence and there has been no crime – I do not understand why you are again involved, it can only be Mr Bengs’ using you to harass me more.
There are several other points related to your email which must be corrected:
1. I told Mr Bengs, in the email which you should have seen, that nothing I was planning to do would come into your responsibility and that he did not need to bother you again.
2. You know that my only wish is to use whatever acceptable methods are necessary to encourage him to respect the Estonian court and follow their instructions.
3. He has now instructed a new lawyer. I hope this one will remind him of his obligations and some progress will now be made. Perhaps the action I have taken does now mean my wish will be met.
4. Mr Bengs is lying again, if he told you I have been to Finland many times to meet him. I have made the journey twice only, you know both dates, and both times I have told him afterwards - I am keeping no secrets. I am sure Finland’s own surveillance for anti-terrorist purposes must know I have made no other visits.
5. He tells you he “suspects” his house is being observed by “unknown men”, I am known to him so obviously that cannot be me. It is more likely that it is happening only on the peculiar planet where Mr Bengs seems to live, well away from normal humanity.
6. I know that I am at least the third person to be cheated by Mr Bengs regarding Munga 9, Parnu. If he has cheated other people in other places then that could account for the unknown men, if they really do exist. I am sure that the Finnish taxpayer will be reassured to know that Espoo police are spending their money on patrols to protect him whether they are imaginary or deserved by his behaviour
I do not have any plans to return to your country, and if I make a statement it is unlikely to result in any “closure” – Mr Bengs will just make further complaints and you will be back at the beginning, again.
The “closure” you want is already there.
Mr Bengs knows he has cheated people, he feels no regret and experiences no guilt, however he has become worried about what he has started and how it may develop – that is the risk he took in the way he behaves so that is his problem, not mine.
You know that I have tried to conduct everything through lawyers and the court.
You also know that he has showed his contempt for those methods, so I can only follow his example and attempt to deal with him in person.
Nobody, including you, has any right to suggest that I am acting illegally when there is no evidence.
You are from the Violent Crimes Division, you know there has been no violence and there has been no crime – I do not understand why you are again involved, it can only be Mr Bengs’ using you to harass me more.
There are several other points related to your email which must be corrected:
1. I told Mr Bengs, in the email which you should have seen, that nothing I was planning to do would come into your responsibility and that he did not need to bother you again.
2. You know that my only wish is to use whatever acceptable methods are necessary to encourage him to respect the Estonian court and follow their instructions.
3. He has now instructed a new lawyer. I hope this one will remind him of his obligations and some progress will now be made. Perhaps the action I have taken does now mean my wish will be met.
4. Mr Bengs is lying again, if he told you I have been to Finland many times to meet him. I have made the journey twice only, you know both dates, and both times I have told him afterwards - I am keeping no secrets. I am sure Finland’s own surveillance for anti-terrorist purposes must know I have made no other visits.
5. He tells you he “suspects” his house is being observed by “unknown men”, I am known to him so obviously that cannot be me. It is more likely that it is happening only on the peculiar planet where Mr Bengs seems to live, well away from normal humanity.
6. I know that I am at least the third person to be cheated by Mr Bengs regarding Munga 9, Parnu. If he has cheated other people in other places then that could account for the unknown men, if they really do exist. I am sure that the Finnish taxpayer will be reassured to know that Espoo police are spending their money on patrols to protect him whether they are imaginary or deserved by his behaviour
I do not have any plans to return to your country, and if I make a statement it is unlikely to result in any “closure” – Mr Bengs will just make further complaints and you will be back at the beginning, again.
The “closure” you want is already there.
Mr Bengs knows he has cheated people, he feels no regret and experiences no guilt, however he has become worried about what he has started and how it may develop – that is the risk he took in the way he behaves so that is his problem, not mine.
You know that I have tried to conduct everything through lawyers and the court.
You also know that he has showed his contempt for those methods, so I can only follow his example and attempt to deal with him in person.
Nobody, including you, has any right to suggest that I am acting illegally when there is no evidence.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:02
Action against Christer Bengs
Regarding your mail and our Phone Converstion,i herewith declare that i was in Finland 2 times,in January and April for the reason to talk to Christer Bengs to solve our dispute in Estonia.i was not involved in any crime or illegal actions in your country.i have good friends in Helsinki and Espo, wich i know for many years who will witness for my integrety and honesty.If Bengs interprets my contact to him as a illegal threat, and if he suspects that his house has been observed by some unknown men, he should feel free to do so. as I told you already, Bengs knows he has cheated several people, he feels no regret and experiences no guilt, however he has become worried about what he has started and how it may develop further problems– that is the risk he took in the way he behaves so that is his problem, not mine.
He may talk to Estonian Police to put criminal action against me, but I believe he is to afraid to come to Estonia.
I hope we have solved this now and you will not be disturbed anymore from Bengs.
He may talk to Estonian Police to put criminal action against me, but I believe he is to afraid to come to Estonia.
I hope we have solved this now and you will not be disturbed anymore from Bengs.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:04
Action against Christer Bengs
Dear Mr.Laretei,
Further to our meeting last Monday, 11 August 2008, I am writing to confirm my position.
As you saw the building Munga 9 is in poor condition, much money needs to be spent to keep it in a usable condition, for example the windows are rotten and will fall into pieces very soon, even though they are not opened as I do not dare to. You have seen the condition of the entrance door and out site area, which Mr.Bengs promised to have painted but never did.
I showed you the kitchen equipment which I had replaced in order to be able to operate the restaurant I had rented from Mr. Bengs.
I showed you the condition of the stoves which are so old they are close to collapsing – the contract requires me to heat the building during the winter, but this is not possible as the stoves in the state handed over by Mr. Bengs are not capable of doing so, and the building itself is very poorly insulated.
You have forwarded copies of Mr. Bengs invoices which I have received before. I have made my position clear, until the amounts which I have spent to bring the contract object up to the standard required are refunded or set against the rent then I shall make no further payment. Mr. Bengs has repeatedly made his own attitude equally clear and will not agree to negotiate any compromise, preferring to wait up to several years for the court to hear his application and dismiss it. The Court will oblige us anyway to find a compromise before they will hear the case, which I have offered now several times to Mr.Bengs.
Mr. Bengs has suggested that I took the restaurant just for the summer season intending to close at the end of this year and run away. That was never my intention; I negotiated a 5 year contract to build a successful business and keep it running for the contracted time and to renew the contract in 2012 if its success continued. My planned investment in the decoration and equipping of the premises was done on that basis, what I should never have had to do was to replace the defective equipment handed over at the start of the contract and it is the money spent there which I am claiming.
Mr. Bengs has said that he wants the building back so he can sell it. This is a good idea as the building needs full renovation as you saw.
I am able to help him here, He can buy my company for 800,000 Kr to sell with the building. It will allow him to sell Munga 9 as a well-established working business with the associated goodwill and licenses and will add more than that amount to the price he can ask for the building alone.
Further to our meeting last Monday, 11 August 2008, I am writing to confirm my position.
As you saw the building Munga 9 is in poor condition, much money needs to be spent to keep it in a usable condition, for example the windows are rotten and will fall into pieces very soon, even though they are not opened as I do not dare to. You have seen the condition of the entrance door and out site area, which Mr.Bengs promised to have painted but never did.
I showed you the kitchen equipment which I had replaced in order to be able to operate the restaurant I had rented from Mr. Bengs.
I showed you the condition of the stoves which are so old they are close to collapsing – the contract requires me to heat the building during the winter, but this is not possible as the stoves in the state handed over by Mr. Bengs are not capable of doing so, and the building itself is very poorly insulated.
You have forwarded copies of Mr. Bengs invoices which I have received before. I have made my position clear, until the amounts which I have spent to bring the contract object up to the standard required are refunded or set against the rent then I shall make no further payment. Mr. Bengs has repeatedly made his own attitude equally clear and will not agree to negotiate any compromise, preferring to wait up to several years for the court to hear his application and dismiss it. The Court will oblige us anyway to find a compromise before they will hear the case, which I have offered now several times to Mr.Bengs.
Mr. Bengs has suggested that I took the restaurant just for the summer season intending to close at the end of this year and run away. That was never my intention; I negotiated a 5 year contract to build a successful business and keep it running for the contracted time and to renew the contract in 2012 if its success continued. My planned investment in the decoration and equipping of the premises was done on that basis, what I should never have had to do was to replace the defective equipment handed over at the start of the contract and it is the money spent there which I am claiming.
Mr. Bengs has said that he wants the building back so he can sell it. This is a good idea as the building needs full renovation as you saw.
I am able to help him here, He can buy my company for 800,000 Kr to sell with the building. It will allow him to sell Munga 9 as a well-established working business with the associated goodwill and licenses and will add more than that amount to the price he can ask for the building alone.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:06
Action against Christer Bengs
CHRISTER BENGS
Linkomäki 14,
Espoo 02630
Finland
REQUEST TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE PREMISES
Re: Contract of lease concerning Munga 9, Pärnu
Sept 22th, 2008 West-Estonian Fire Department (Rescue Service) has inspected the performance of the fire safety regulations in the building located by the address Munga 9, Pärnu.
The inspector has ascertained that the all the four heaters (ovens) in the building are broken – there are deep chaps in the ovens walls, exterior has lampblack traces, the stovepipes are cracked. The inspector has ascertained that all the ovens in the building are inflammable and prohibited using of all the ovens (4) before repairing of them.
The fire Department has made the prescription to repair all the ovens in the building and applied compulsory measures.
According to the § 276 of the Contractual Law of the Republic of Estonia a lessor is required to deliver a thing, together with its accessories, to a lessee by the agreed time and in a suitable condition for contractual use and to ensure that the thing is maintained in such condition during the validity of the contract. According to the § 278 of the Contractual Law, if a leased thing is, during the term of a contract, affected with a defect if there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the thing, the lessee may demand that the lessor remove the defect or obstacle pursuant to the provisions of § 279 of this Law.
As the it´s prohibited using of all the ovens, the building is without heating. The contractual use of the leased building is impossible. Thus there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the leased building.
Herewith The Lessee requires that The Lessor removes the defects within two weeks from the making of this request.
Linkomäki 14,
Espoo 02630
Finland
REQUEST TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE PREMISES
Re: Contract of lease concerning Munga 9, Pärnu
Sept 22th, 2008 West-Estonian Fire Department (Rescue Service) has inspected the performance of the fire safety regulations in the building located by the address Munga 9, Pärnu.
The inspector has ascertained that the all the four heaters (ovens) in the building are broken – there are deep chaps in the ovens walls, exterior has lampblack traces, the stovepipes are cracked. The inspector has ascertained that all the ovens in the building are inflammable and prohibited using of all the ovens (4) before repairing of them.
The fire Department has made the prescription to repair all the ovens in the building and applied compulsory measures.
According to the § 276 of the Contractual Law of the Republic of Estonia a lessor is required to deliver a thing, together with its accessories, to a lessee by the agreed time and in a suitable condition for contractual use and to ensure that the thing is maintained in such condition during the validity of the contract. According to the § 278 of the Contractual Law, if a leased thing is, during the term of a contract, affected with a defect if there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the thing, the lessee may demand that the lessor remove the defect or obstacle pursuant to the provisions of § 279 of this Law.
As the it´s prohibited using of all the ovens, the building is without heating. The contractual use of the leased building is impossible. Thus there is an obstacle to the contractual use of the leased building.
Herewith The Lessee requires that The Lessor removes the defects within two weeks from the making of this request.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:06
Action against Christer Bengs
Dieter Vogtschmidt
Restoran Primavera Meie 22.09.2008 nr 5.1-2/1778
Munga 9
80010 PÄRNU
Munga tn 9 akende restaureerimine
Muinsuskaitseamet tutvus Munga 9 akende seisukorraga ning ei nõustu akende vahetamisega. Aknad on võimalik ja vajalik restaureerida. Arvestades akende seisukorda on restaureerimine vajalik teostada hiljemalt 2009.a. lõpuks.
Akende restaureerimiseks on võimalik Muinsuskaitseameti eelarvest taotleda restaureerimistoetust.
Lugupidamisega
Nele Rent
Pärnumaa vaneminspektor
443 1046; nele.rent@muinas.ee
Restoran Primavera Meie 22.09.2008 nr 5.1-2/1778
Munga 9
80010 PÄRNU
Munga tn 9 akende restaureerimine
Muinsuskaitseamet tutvus Munga 9 akende seisukorraga ning ei nõustu akende vahetamisega. Aknad on võimalik ja vajalik restaureerida. Arvestades akende seisukorda on restaureerimine vajalik teostada hiljemalt 2009.a. lõpuks.
Akende restaureerimiseks on võimalik Muinsuskaitseameti eelarvest taotleda restaureerimistoetust.
Lugupidamisega
Nele Rent
Pärnumaa vaneminspektor
443 1046; nele.rent@muinas.ee
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:07
Action against Christer Bengs
Mr.Bengs,
I have now tried several times by phone to get an appointment with you to solve the problems regarding Munga 9, the property you rent to me.
I know you are an educated man, surely you understand that problems and disputes need to be solved in our civilisation by dialog and talking - certainly Estonian courts expect to see that there have been attempts to find a compromise. Always fighting doesn’t help at all and does not solve the problem.
It was my last attempt to call to you today ,but you said you were not able to talk to me but said again I should talk to your lawyer which is not very helpful as it just causes delay and risks misunderstanding. I believe in justice and that, when the time comes, the court will make the right decision.
I closed the restaurant Sunday because of the cold weather conditions and the defective heating units in the place which have been condemned by the fire department.
As a result my case to the court will include a claim for compensation for loss of business from first of November and the amount will be growing day by day until there is a settlement.
I have now tried several times by phone to get an appointment with you to solve the problems regarding Munga 9, the property you rent to me.
I know you are an educated man, surely you understand that problems and disputes need to be solved in our civilisation by dialog and talking - certainly Estonian courts expect to see that there have been attempts to find a compromise. Always fighting doesn’t help at all and does not solve the problem.
It was my last attempt to call to you today ,but you said you were not able to talk to me but said again I should talk to your lawyer which is not very helpful as it just causes delay and risks misunderstanding. I believe in justice and that, when the time comes, the court will make the right decision.
I closed the restaurant Sunday because of the cold weather conditions and the defective heating units in the place which have been condemned by the fire department.
As a result my case to the court will include a claim for compensation for loss of business from first of November and the amount will be growing day by day until there is a settlement.
... link
dieter vogt,
Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 18:09
Action against Christer Bengs
Oikeus
Pärnun Maaseutuoikeus
Oikeuden kokoonpano
Tuomari Toomas Talviste
Päätöksen tekemisaika ja -paikka
8. heinäkuuta 2008 Pärnu
Siviiliasian numero
2-08-28147
Siviiliasia
Hakemus OÜ Balti Domus:in kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä Christer Johannes Bengsiä (Bengs) vastaan vuokrasopimuksen voimassaolon toteamisen asiassa
Menettelytoimi
Kanteen takaamisen hakemuksen ratkaiseminen
Menettelyn osapuolet ja heidän edustajansa
Kantaja OÜ Balti Domus, rekisterinumero 11294069, sijaintipaikka Võisten kauppala, Tahkurannan kunta, Pärnumaa, toimintapaikka Munga 9, Pärnu, edustaja sopimuksen perusteella Annika Murulaid
Vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengs, asuinpaikka Linkomäki 14, Espoo 026630, Suomi, postiosoite Aisa 66, Pärnun kaupunki
PÄÄTÖS
Osittain hyväksytään kantajan hakemus kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä.
Kanteen takaamisen toimenpiteenä kielletään oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengsiltä ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä, rekisterinumero 10120395, kiinteistöllä Munga 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettaminen.
Hylätään kantajan hakemus vastaajan ja AS Pärnu Vesin velvoittamisesta palauttamaan kiinteistön Munga 9 vedensaanti, mikäli se on päätöksen tekemisen ajaksi lopetettu.
Annetaan OÜ Balti Domusille määräaika kannekirjelmän esittämiseen viimeistään 31. heinäkuuta tv. Mikäli kannetta ei siihen mennessä esitetä, oikeus mitätöi kanteen takaamisen.
Tämä päätös lähetetään kantajalle ja noudattamista varten vastaajalle sekä AS Pärnu Vesille.
Muutoksenhaku
Tähän päätökseen voi hakea muutosta 10 päivän kuluessa sen saamisesta Tallinnan Piirioikeudesta Pärnun Käräjäoikeuden kautta. Muutoksen hakeminen ei estä kanteen takaamispäätöksen noudattamista.
Siviiliasia nro. 2-08-28147
Sisällölliset seikat
7. heinäkuuta tv. (eli välipäätöksellä 4. heinäkuuta tv. vaaditun hakemuksessa havaittujen puutteiden korjaamisen jälkeen) OÜ Balti Domus on esittänyt Pärnun Maaseutuoikeudelle Christer Johannes Bengsiä vastaan hakemuksen kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä.
Hakemuksen mukaisesti Chr. J. Bengs vuokranantajana ja OÜ Balti Domus vuokransaajana ovat solmineet Munga 9 sijaitsevan rakennuksen, sisäpihan ja laitteiden käyttämisestä vuokrasopimuksen 4.1.2008 tarkoituksenaan ravintolan pitäminen. Vastaaja on ilmoittanut kantajalle vuokrasopimuksen poikkeuksellisesta irtisanomisesta 30. kesäkuuta alkaen tv., vaatinut vuokratun asian palauttamista ja esittänyt AS Pärnu Vesille 1. heinäkuuta tv. hakemuksen vedensaannin sulkemisesta osoitteessa Munga 9, Pärnussa. Kantaja aikoo esittää kanteen vuokrasopimuksen voimassaolon toteamisesta, mutta kanteen esittäminen vaatii aikaa, koska täytyy kerätä lisätodisteita, koko kannemateriaali täytyy kääntää englanniksi ja suomeksi yms. Kantaja harjoittaa kiistanalaisella vuokrapinnalla ravintolatoimintaa ja jos vastaajan määräyksestä vedensaanti lopetetaan, vuokran esineen tarkoituksenmukainen käyttäminen ravintolana tulee mahdottomaksi. Se toisi vuokransaajalle mukanaan taloudellisesti vakavia seurauksia ja oleellisen aineellisen vahingon (elintarvikkeet pilaantuvat, työntekijöille palkan maksamisen mahdottomuus jne.).
OÜ Balti Domus hakee ennen kanteen esittämistä ensisijaisena oikeussuojana oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengsiltä ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä kiinteistöllä Munga-katu 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettamisen kieltämistä ja mikäli päätöksen tekemisen ajaksi vedensaanti on lopetettu, vastaajan ja AS Pärnu Vesin velvoittamista palauttamaan vedensaanti. Kanteen esittämisen määräajaksi kantaja pyytää 1 kuukautta kanteen takaamisen päätöksen tekemisestä.
Oikeuden perustelut
Oikeus, tutustuttuaan kanteen takaamisen hakemukseen ja siihen lisättyihin materiaaleihin, katsoo, että kantajan hakemus on perusteltua ja se hyväksytään osittain.
Siviiliprosessilain (SPL) 377 §:n 1 momentin mukaisesti oikeus voi kantajan hakemuksesta kanteen taata, mikäli on perusteltua olettaa, että takaamatta jättäminen voi vaikeuttaa oikeuden päätöksen noudattamista tai tehdä sen mahdottomaksi. SPL 378 §:n 2 momentista johtuen oikeus voi SPL 377 §:n l momentissa säädetystä riippumatta kanteen takaamisen yhteydessä alustavasti säännöstellä kiistanalaista oikeussuhdetta, ennen kaikkea asian käyttötapaa, mikäli se on tarpeellista olennaisen vahingon tai mielivallan välttämiseksi.
Oikeus katsoo, että mikäli kanne jätetään takaamatta ja kiinteistön Munga 9 vedensaanti lopetetaan, on äärimmäisen todennäköistä, että kantajan taloudellinen toiminta ravintola-alalla päättyy tai se on estetty siinä määrin, että se tuo kantajalle mukanaan olennaisen aineellisen vahingon ja välillisesti myös vaikeuttaa oikeuden päätöksen noudattamista. SPL 378 §:n 1 momentin 4 kohdan perusteella oikeus siten hyväksyy kantajan vaatimuksen ja kieltää tämän oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaajalta ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä Munga-katu 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettamisen.
SPL 378 §:n 1 momentin 3 ja 4 kohdat antavat mahdollisuuden yksiselitteisesti kieltää vastaajalta toimenpiteiden tai toimintojen tekemisen tai toiselta henkilöltä vastaajan suhteen jonkin velvollisuuden täyttämisen, kumpikin kanteen takaamisen toimenpide (eikä myöskään SPL 378 §:n 10 momentti, johon kantaja viittaa) ei kuitenkaan säädä mahdollisuutta velvoittaa vastaajaa, vielä vähemmän toista henkilöä kantajan suhteen tekemään joitakin toimintoja, muun muassa palauttamaan vedensaannin Munga-katu 9 kiinteistöllä. Näin ollen oikeuden mielestä kantajan sellainen hakemus ei ole oikeudellisesti perusteltua. 2(2)
SPL 382 §:n 1 ja 2 momenteista johtuen oikeus voi hakemuksen perusteella taata kanteen myös ennen kanteen esittämistä. Hakemuksessa täytyy perustella, miksei kannetta esitetä heti. Mikäli oikeus takaa kanteen, oikeus antaa määräajan, johon mennessä hakijan täytyy kanne esittää, määräaika ei voi kuitenkaan olla yhtä kuukautta pitempi.
Ottaen huomioon kanteen takaamisen hakemuksessa esitetyn vaatimuksen perusteellisuutta ja seikkaa, että kantaja on alle kolmessa päivässä (4. heinäkuuta tv. puutteiden korjaamista koskevan päätöksen jälkeen hakemuksella 7. heinäkuuta tv.) pystynyt suunniteltavan kanteen vaatimusta ja perusteluja hakemuksessa muuttamaan ja lisätodisteita esittämään, niin oikeuden mielestä kannekirjelmän laatimiseksi riittävä määräaika on kolme viikkoa ja oikeus antaa kanteen esittämisen määräajaksi 31. heinäkuuta 2008.
Pärnun Maaseutuoikeus
Oikeuden kokoonpano
Tuomari Toomas Talviste
Päätöksen tekemisaika ja -paikka
8. heinäkuuta 2008 Pärnu
Siviiliasian numero
2-08-28147
Siviiliasia
Hakemus OÜ Balti Domus:in kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä Christer Johannes Bengsiä (Bengs) vastaan vuokrasopimuksen voimassaolon toteamisen asiassa
Menettelytoimi
Kanteen takaamisen hakemuksen ratkaiseminen
Menettelyn osapuolet ja heidän edustajansa
Kantaja OÜ Balti Domus, rekisterinumero 11294069, sijaintipaikka Võisten kauppala, Tahkurannan kunta, Pärnumaa, toimintapaikka Munga 9, Pärnu, edustaja sopimuksen perusteella Annika Murulaid
Vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengs, asuinpaikka Linkomäki 14, Espoo 026630, Suomi, postiosoite Aisa 66, Pärnun kaupunki
PÄÄTÖS
Osittain hyväksytään kantajan hakemus kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä.
Kanteen takaamisen toimenpiteenä kielletään oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengsiltä ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä, rekisterinumero 10120395, kiinteistöllä Munga 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettaminen.
Hylätään kantajan hakemus vastaajan ja AS Pärnu Vesin velvoittamisesta palauttamaan kiinteistön Munga 9 vedensaanti, mikäli se on päätöksen tekemisen ajaksi lopetettu.
Annetaan OÜ Balti Domusille määräaika kannekirjelmän esittämiseen viimeistään 31. heinäkuuta tv. Mikäli kannetta ei siihen mennessä esitetä, oikeus mitätöi kanteen takaamisen.
Tämä päätös lähetetään kantajalle ja noudattamista varten vastaajalle sekä AS Pärnu Vesille.
Muutoksenhaku
Tähän päätökseen voi hakea muutosta 10 päivän kuluessa sen saamisesta Tallinnan Piirioikeudesta Pärnun Käräjäoikeuden kautta. Muutoksen hakeminen ei estä kanteen takaamispäätöksen noudattamista.
Siviiliasia nro. 2-08-28147
Sisällölliset seikat
7. heinäkuuta tv. (eli välipäätöksellä 4. heinäkuuta tv. vaaditun hakemuksessa havaittujen puutteiden korjaamisen jälkeen) OÜ Balti Domus on esittänyt Pärnun Maaseutuoikeudelle Christer Johannes Bengsiä vastaan hakemuksen kanteen takaamisesta ennen kanteen esittämistä.
Hakemuksen mukaisesti Chr. J. Bengs vuokranantajana ja OÜ Balti Domus vuokransaajana ovat solmineet Munga 9 sijaitsevan rakennuksen, sisäpihan ja laitteiden käyttämisestä vuokrasopimuksen 4.1.2008 tarkoituksenaan ravintolan pitäminen. Vastaaja on ilmoittanut kantajalle vuokrasopimuksen poikkeuksellisesta irtisanomisesta 30. kesäkuuta alkaen tv., vaatinut vuokratun asian palauttamista ja esittänyt AS Pärnu Vesille 1. heinäkuuta tv. hakemuksen vedensaannin sulkemisesta osoitteessa Munga 9, Pärnussa. Kantaja aikoo esittää kanteen vuokrasopimuksen voimassaolon toteamisesta, mutta kanteen esittäminen vaatii aikaa, koska täytyy kerätä lisätodisteita, koko kannemateriaali täytyy kääntää englanniksi ja suomeksi yms. Kantaja harjoittaa kiistanalaisella vuokrapinnalla ravintolatoimintaa ja jos vastaajan määräyksestä vedensaanti lopetetaan, vuokran esineen tarkoituksenmukainen käyttäminen ravintolana tulee mahdottomaksi. Se toisi vuokransaajalle mukanaan taloudellisesti vakavia seurauksia ja oleellisen aineellisen vahingon (elintarvikkeet pilaantuvat, työntekijöille palkan maksamisen mahdottomuus jne.).
OÜ Balti Domus hakee ennen kanteen esittämistä ensisijaisena oikeussuojana oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaaja Christer Johannes Bengsiltä ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä kiinteistöllä Munga-katu 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettamisen kieltämistä ja mikäli päätöksen tekemisen ajaksi vedensaanti on lopetettu, vastaajan ja AS Pärnu Vesin velvoittamista palauttamaan vedensaanti. Kanteen esittämisen määräajaksi kantaja pyytää 1 kuukautta kanteen takaamisen päätöksen tekemisestä.
Oikeuden perustelut
Oikeus, tutustuttuaan kanteen takaamisen hakemukseen ja siihen lisättyihin materiaaleihin, katsoo, että kantajan hakemus on perusteltua ja se hyväksytään osittain.
Siviiliprosessilain (SPL) 377 §:n 1 momentin mukaisesti oikeus voi kantajan hakemuksesta kanteen taata, mikäli on perusteltua olettaa, että takaamatta jättäminen voi vaikeuttaa oikeuden päätöksen noudattamista tai tehdä sen mahdottomaksi. SPL 378 §:n 2 momentista johtuen oikeus voi SPL 377 §:n l momentissa säädetystä riippumatta kanteen takaamisen yhteydessä alustavasti säännöstellä kiistanalaista oikeussuhdetta, ennen kaikkea asian käyttötapaa, mikäli se on tarpeellista olennaisen vahingon tai mielivallan välttämiseksi.
Oikeus katsoo, että mikäli kanne jätetään takaamatta ja kiinteistön Munga 9 vedensaanti lopetetaan, on äärimmäisen todennäköistä, että kantajan taloudellinen toiminta ravintola-alalla päättyy tai se on estetty siinä määrin, että se tuo kantajalle mukanaan olennaisen aineellisen vahingon ja välillisesti myös vaikeuttaa oikeuden päätöksen noudattamista. SPL 378 §:n 1 momentin 4 kohdan perusteella oikeus siten hyväksyy kantajan vaatimuksen ja kieltää tämän oikeuden menettelyn ajaksi vastaajalta ja AS Pärnu Vesiltä Munga-katu 9 Pärnussa sijaitsevien rakennusten vedensaannin lopettamisen.
SPL 378 §:n 1 momentin 3 ja 4 kohdat antavat mahdollisuuden yksiselitteisesti kieltää vastaajalta toimenpiteiden tai toimintojen tekemisen tai toiselta henkilöltä vastaajan suhteen jonkin velvollisuuden täyttämisen, kumpikin kanteen takaamisen toimenpide (eikä myöskään SPL 378 §:n 10 momentti, johon kantaja viittaa) ei kuitenkaan säädä mahdollisuutta velvoittaa vastaajaa, vielä vähemmän toista henkilöä kantajan suhteen tekemään joitakin toimintoja, muun muassa palauttamaan vedensaannin Munga-katu 9 kiinteistöllä. Näin ollen oikeuden mielestä kantajan sellainen hakemus ei ole oikeudellisesti perusteltua. 2(2)
SPL 382 §:n 1 ja 2 momenteista johtuen oikeus voi hakemuksen perusteella taata kanteen myös ennen kanteen esittämistä. Hakemuksessa täytyy perustella, miksei kannetta esitetä heti. Mikäli oikeus takaa kanteen, oikeus antaa määräajan, johon mennessä hakijan täytyy kanne esittää, määräaika ei voi kuitenkaan olla yhtä kuukautta pitempi.
Ottaen huomioon kanteen takaamisen hakemuksessa esitetyn vaatimuksen perusteellisuutta ja seikkaa, että kantaja on alle kolmessa päivässä (4. heinäkuuta tv. puutteiden korjaamista koskevan päätöksen jälkeen hakemuksella 7. heinäkuuta tv.) pystynyt suunniteltavan kanteen vaatimusta ja perusteluja hakemuksessa muuttamaan ja lisätodisteita esittämään, niin oikeuden mielestä kannekirjelmän laatimiseksi riittävä määräaika on kolme viikkoa ja oikeus antaa kanteen esittämisen määräajaksi 31. heinäkuuta 2008.
... link
... comment
dieter vogt,
Friday, 19. June 2009, 20:01
Christer Bengs,the big cheater
... link
... comment
