Objection

Company “X” terminated the lease immediately because Company “Y” did not submit a bank guarantee for the lease security within the deadline.” ‘X’ terminated the contract the day after the guarantee was to be ‘submitted’. There are many indications that the reason for termination did not occur m.in. it is not known what it means to ‘submit a guarantee’: whether it is a debt or a debt receiving. There are many indications that “X” terminated the contract for a different reason than she formally stated. This would mean that ‘X’: (a) has abused its right to terminate the contract and (b) committed an act of unfair competition. How to establish these facts in the process? Many proceedings were pending. In one of them, the General Court determined what was most important in the situation described so that it asked a witness from Company “X”:
-“Were there other reasons for termination than Company “X” stated in a formal statement.”

The witness replied that it was not. The court set aside almost all other questions from “Y” lawyers and justified this on the grounds that the witness had already testified that there were no other reasons than those stated in the official statement, so this fact has already been clarified. There is no reason to continue to torment the witness once he has already said what he knows. The KPC does not regulate casuistically when a court can set aside a question. And rightly so. But in this case could the General Court?