A service provider provided various business services for several years without a binding contract between the parties and without receiving any consideration.
The Supreme Court held that the consideration to which the service provider is entitled should be reduced due to it avoiding finalizing the matter of the consideration through a binding agreement between the parties. A party who provided a service with the consent of the recipient, without a binding contract between the parties, will be entitled to an adequate consideration for the service he provided. However, the recipient of the services can be exempted from the payment obligation, in whole or in part, wherer there are circumstances that make the full payment unjust. Because the service provider, unlike the recipient, has information about the scope of the services and their anticipated cost, it is the efficient and cheap damage preventer which should bear liability for the uncertainty regarding the price of the service. Here, it is a service provider who chose to provide its services in sales promotion without finalizing its price for the services in advance, and without even sending the recipient, for the sake of clarity, any letter stating the price it will demand if the sale goes through and thus should be awarded for payment.