Recently, the Supreme Court has dealt with a case of return of unjust enrichment between entrepreneurs, namely a case where it is no longer possible to return the goods which have been (wrongly) acquired. In such a situation it is appropriate to provide adequate financial compensation for the delivered goods in the amount of their usual price, as its economic consideration.What was unique about the case was the determination of whether the monetary compensation should reflect the retail or wholesale price of the goods. The Supreme Court, as the institution unifying the judicial practice, considered this issue as crucial not only in terms of frequent disputes between entrepreneurs, but also because of the lack of any definitions of "retail" and "wholesale" in the Czech legal system. "Retail" means sale of goods to end consumers, while "wholesale" refers to sale of goods to entrepreneurs for the purpose of resale.
Regarding the actual amount of monetary compensation for goods between entrepreneurs, the Supreme Court stipulated as determining, for the future, the usual price at which entrepreneurs normally acquired the same or similar goods, not the price at which entrepreneurs sold the goods to end (direct) consumers.
