Point of law: whether debtor ought to perform properly his obligation to pay, even though he did not have information on the new bank account of the creditor.

Alternative attitudes: 1) having in mind the degree of care and prudence required from the creditor by virtue of the nature of obligation and the customs of business circulation, the creditor ought to inform the debtor about the change of the details of his bank account for the purposes of good faith performance of his payment obligation, even though by the moment of revocation of license from the bank the debtor was already in delay with respect to his payment obligation; or 2) it is the debtor, not the creditor, with whom the primary duty to take necessary and reasonable steps to perform the obligation lies: in case of the emergence of obstacles beyond the control of the debtor that impede the performance of his obligation, he must inform the creditor about such obstacles without delay.

Ratio decidendi: the second approach is legally correct.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.