Dzerzhinsky District Court of Orenburg (Orenburg Region) - Civil and administrative

Legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business customs and other usually imposed requirements. By virtue of clause 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-1723/2018 2-1723/2018~M-1418/2018 M-1418/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-1723/2018

Leninsky District Court of Kirov (Kirov Region) - Civil and administrative

The hearing of the case was duly notified; the court did not notify the reasons for failure to appear. The court, after hearing the parties and studying the written materials of the case, comes to the following conclusion. According to paragraph 1 of Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-2806/2018 2-2806/2018~M-2373/2018 M-2373/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-2806/2018

Oktyabrsky District Court of Ufa (Republic of Bashkortostan) - Civil and administrative

Agreement. In this case, the terms of the agreement are determined by agreement of the parties, except in cases where the content of the relevant agreement is prescribed by law or other legal acts. According to Part 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (product) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this product and pay...

Decision No. 2-3857/2018 2-3857/2018~M-3373/2018 M-3373/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-3857/2018

Central District Court of Tolyatti ( Samara Region) - Civil and administrative

Did not have. The court, having heard the explanations of the plaintiff’s representative and checked the case materials, considers the plaintiff’s demands to be satisfied in part on the following grounds. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-801/2018 2-801/2018~M-833/2018 M-833/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-801/2018

Vyatskopolyansky District Court (Kirov region) - Civil and administrative

And the requirements of the law and other legal acts. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and unilateral change of its terms are not allowed, except in cases provided for by law. According to Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-2319/2018 2-2319/2018~M-2096/2018 M-2096/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-2319/2018

Dinskoy District Court (Krasnodar Territory) - Civil and administrative

Postal address: , Dinskoye rural settlement, DNT "Gardener", . 02/01/2006 The land plot is registered in the cadastral register and assigned a cadastral number. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-1898/2018 2-1898/2018~M-1534/2018 M-1534/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-1898/2018

Ustinovsky District Court of Izhevsk ( Udmurt republic) - Civil and administrative

An agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in appropriate cases, on all the essential terms of the agreement. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a purchase and sale agreement, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for...

Decision No. 2-188/2018 2-188/2018(2-3975/2017;)~M-3436/2017 2-3975/2017 M-3436/2017 dated September 27, 2018 in case No. 2-188/2018

Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma (Kostroma Region) - Civil and administrative

Transfer the thing (product) into the ownership of another party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this product and pay a certain amount of money (price) for it (clause 1 of Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In accordance with Art. 551 clause 1, art. 558 clause 3 of the Civil Code Russian Federation transfer of ownership of real estate under a real estate purchase and sale agreement...

1. Coordination of essential terms in the documents provided for in the purchase and sale agreement or attached to it

2. Agreeing on essential terms in the invoice in the absence of a sales contract

1. Confiscation of goods during transportation through the fault of the seller

2. Documents to be transferred along with the goods

1. Consequence of establishing a period of validity in the purchase and sale agreement

2. Determination of a reasonable period for fulfilling the obligation to transfer goods

1. Evidence of fulfillment of the obligation to transfer goods

2. Evidence of untimely transfer or non-transfer of goods

3. The moment of fulfillment of the seller’s obligation to transfer the goods to the buyer

1. Goods encumbered with the rights of third parties

2. Consequences of transfer of goods encumbered with the rights of third parties

1. Restrictions on the application of Art. 461 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Refusal to pay in case of failure to fulfill the obligation to transfer documents related to the goods

2. The condition of the purchase and sale agreement on payment for goods after the transfer of documents related to it

3. Collection by the buyer of payment for goods transferred without documentation

4. The possibility of the buyer requesting documents related to the goods held by third parties

1. Agreeing on the terms of the purchase and sale agreement on the quantity of goods

2. The possibility of establishing in the sales contract a condition on a unilateral change in the quantity of goods

1. The buyer’s obligation to pay for the goods transferred to him in excess

2. Transfer of the risk of accidental loss of goods and the seller’s liability for shortages of goods

3. The buyer’s obligation to notify the seller of the detected shortage

1. Consequences of transferring goods in violation of the assortment conditions

1. Restrictions on the turnover of products as a result of the issuance of acts of government bodies

2. Consequences of recognizing a product as not conforming to state standards

3. Evidence of the seller’s notification of the purpose of purchasing the goods

4. Competition between the concepts of poor quality and incompleteness

1. Condition of the purchase and sale agreement on early termination of the warranty period

2. Agreeing on the terms of the warranty period after concluding the contract

1. Consequence of the parties agreeing on the terms of the purchase and sale agreement on checking the quality of the goods

2. The moment of submitting evidence of the quality of the goods

1. Buyer's requirements based on the provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

2. Consequences of the seller’s refusal to fulfill the buyer’s requirements based on the provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

3. Other rights of the buyer when transferring low-quality goods to him, except for those provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

4. Significant violations of the requirements for the quality of goods, not specified in paragraph 2 of Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

5. Determination of the irremovability of deficiencies and the disproportionality of the time spent on their elimination

6. The possibility of the buyer exercising the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of Art. 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if it applies clause 1 of Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

7. The rights of the buyer in accordance with paragraph 4 of Art. 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in relation to part of the goods of proper quality included in the kit

8. Consequences of buyer refusal of low-quality goods

9. Possibility of the buyer demanding replacement of low-quality goods

10. The possibility of the buyer demanding a reduction in the purchase price of low-quality goods

11. Evidence of transfer of defective goods

1. Circumstances to be proven by the seller if there are defects in the goods for which a guarantee was provided

2. Placing the burden of proving the causes of defects on the buyer if there is a warranty for the product

3. Inadequate evidence of the causes of deficiencies

1. Extension (renewal) of the period for filing claims regarding the quality of the goods

2. Interpretation of the norm of paragraph 1 of Art. 477 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Examples of interpretation of the concept of “incomplete goods”

1. Recognition of the obligation to transfer a set of goods as fulfilled

2. Application of the provisions of Art. Art. 478 - 480 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to relations involving the transfer of a set of goods without a contract

1. Possibility of applying the provisions of the agreement on the transfer of low-quality goods to cases of delivery of incomplete goods

2. The condition for the application of the consequences provided for in Art. 480 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Consequences of failure to notify the seller of improper performance of the contract

2. Reasonable period for filing a claim with the seller

1. Change in the price of the product after its transfer to the buyer

2. Consequences of indicating in the debt reconciliation report the original price of the goods instead of the changed one

3. Consequences of indicating in documents related to the contract a price different from that agreed upon in the contract

1. Payment for goods accepted without stating the requirements provided for in Art. 475 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

2. Payment period for the transferred goods in the absence of such a condition in the sales contract

3. Interpretation of the concept “directly” when paying for goods by bank transfer

4. The possibility of setting the deadline for payment for goods depending on the fulfillment of other terms of the purchase and sale agreement

5. Payment by the buyer for goods if it is impossible to dispose of them

6. Consequence of the buyer’s failure to fulfill the obligation to pay for the goods

7. Condition for exercising the seller’s right to suspend the transfer of goods

8. Circumstances that do not exempt the buyer from paying for the goods

9. Circumstances that exempt the buyer from paying for the goods

10. Payment under the bill of sale agreement

1. Collection of interest for the use of someone else’s funds when transferring goods under a purchase and sale agreement before receiving the prepayment agreed upon by the parties

2. The seller’s right to demand a contractual penalty when transferring goods under a purchase and sale agreement in the absence of prepayment

3. Condition of the purchase and sale agreement regarding penalties for late prepayment of untransferred goods

4. The possibility of including in the purchase and sale agreement a condition on the consequences of the lack of advance payment, other than those provided for in Art. 328 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

5. Possibility of collecting advance payment under the purchase and sale agreement

6. Possibility of terminating the sales contract due to failure to make advance payment

7. The seller’s right to suspend the transfer of goods under the sales contract in case of incomplete prepayment

8. Refund of advance payment under the purchase and sale agreement

9. Restriction of the buyer’s right to demand the transfer of paid goods due to the expiration of the purchase and sale agreement

10. Consequences of payment on an invoice without a sales contract

11. Application of rules on commercial credit to a purchase and sale agreement with advance payment

12. Recognition of the terms of the purchase and sale agreement on the payment of interest for the use of other people’s funds as a condition of a commercial loan

13. Condition for releasing the seller from liability for delay in transfer of prepaid goods under the sales contract

14. The right of the buyer who has demanded the return of the advance payment to collect a contractual penalty in case of delay in transfer of goods under the sales contract

1. Agreeing in the sales contract the terms of the sale of goods on credit

2. Consequence of contradiction of the terms of payment for goods Art. 190 Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the application of Art. 488 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

3. Deferment of payment for goods as a condition of a commercial loan

4. Consequence of recognizing the term of payment for the transferred goods as a condition of a commercial loan

5. The seller’s right to demand the return of unpaid goods

6. Possibility of foreclosure on unpaid goods sold on credit

7. Collection of interest in accordance with Art. 395 Civil Code of the Russian Federation in case of late payment for goods

1. The seller’s rights to choose a method of protecting violated rights when selling goods in installments

1. Consequence of non-payment for the transferred goods while retaining ownership of the seller

2. Limitations on the application of Art. 491 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation regarding the seller’s right to demand the return of unpaid goods

See changes for the last month

ConsultantPlus, 03/17/2010

Guide to judicial practice: purchase and sale. General provisions

Chapter 30. Purchase and sale

§ 1. General provisions on purchase and sale

Article 454. Sale and purchase agreement

Issues of judicial practice on the interpretation and application of Art. 454 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Consequence of the absence in the delivery note of a reference to the agreement concluded between the parties >>>

2. Possibility of recognizing the executed sales contract as not concluded >>>

3. Consequences of transfer of goods in the absence of a concluded supply agreement >>>

4. Purchase and sale of bills of exchange >>>

5. Purchase and sale of receivables >>>

6. Possibility of applying the provisions on purchase and sale to the sale of a share in the authorized capital >>>

7. Possibility of applying the provisions of Ch. 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation when transferring exclusive rights >>>

8. Correlation of REPO transactions with the purchase and sale agreement >>>

1. Consequence of the absence of a reference to the agreement concluded between the parties in the delivery note

1.1. Conclusion from judicial practice: The absence of a reference to the delivery agreement concluded between the parties in the delivery note indicates that the goods were supplied under a one-time purchase and sale transaction.

Arbitrage practice:

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated October 13, 2009 in case No. A17-4447/2008

"...As follows from the case materials, the Company (supplier) and the Entrepreneur (buyer) entered into a supply agreement dated 01.02.2007 N 425/07 for the supply of food products. The plaintiff presented invoices for the period from February to September 2007 to confirm the debt N 5523, 6556, 9299, 10601, 12268, 15188, 15715, 16257, 17092, 20318, 20320, 20322, 20863, 24125, 25838, 25883, 26461, , 30163, 30165, 32348, 33103, 33566, 33567, 33577 , 33569, 33578, 36631, 41094, 41115, 41082 for a total amount of 677,208 rubles, powers of attorney for them and invoices for payment.

The appellate court found that invoices, powers of attorney for receiving goods and invoices do not contain reference to the supply agreement dated 01.02.2007 N 425/07, therefore, applying Article 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it made a reasonable conclusion that there is a dispute between the parties one-time transactions with the defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods after transfer of the goods..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated September 25, 2009 in case No. A43-29475/2008-29-441

“...Since the goods and shipping invoices dated November 8, 2007 N 00827, available in the case materials, in violation of clause 1.2 of the disputed agreement, do not contain references to it, the courts rightfully regarded the delivery under the invoices as non-contractual.

These invoices contain information about the name, price and quantity of goods accepted by TD Rastyapino LLC, which makes it possible to qualify the actions of the parties as concluding a one-time purchase and sale transaction.

Thus, the obligations of the parties to transfer and accept the disputed goods are subject to application of the rules of § 1 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on obligations arising from sales contracts..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District dated October 21, 2009 in case No. A46-5217/2009

"...The appellate court, upon re-examining the case materials, came to the conclusion that the supply of alcoholic beverages was carried out under one-time transactions, documented by waybills containing information about the name and quantity of the transferred goods. At the same time, the appellate court considered that it was not there is reason to evaluate the supply agreement dated December 20, 2005 N 1015 in the case, since the presented invoices do not contain instructions for the transfer of alcoholic products in pursuance of this agreement.

The Cassation Board believes that these conclusions of the courts were made in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of a full and comprehensive study of all the circumstances and evidence in their totality in the case, with the correct application of the rules of substantive law.

One must agree with the conclusion of the appellate court that the supply of products under the named invoices represents one-time purchase and sale transactions, to which the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated January 18, 2010 N KG-A40/14193-09 in case No. A40-57077/09-128-377

“...So, from the invoices presented in the case materials, it is clear that the contract of May 28, 2007 No. 718 is indicated as the basis for the supply.

Meanwhile, the courts of first and appellate instances, which considered the present dispute on the merits of the stated claims, established that an agreement with the specified details was not concluded between the parties.

At the same time, in the invoices presented in the case materials there are no references to agreements No. 44713 and 44795 of January 1, 2007, No. 44874 of December 31, 2007, and therefore the courts had no grounds for applying the provisions provided for in these agreements .

The courts of both instances rightfully qualified the controversial legal relations of the parties as one-time purchase and sale transactions, in which the terms of the name and price of the goods were agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendant in the invoices, which does not contradict Art. 432, part 3 art. 455 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated October 14, 2009 N KG-A41/10266-09 in case No. A41-18039/09

"...The courts of both instances found that the delivery of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant was confirmed by waybill No. 298179 dated August 11, 2005 for a total amount of 229,106 rubles. 93 kopecks.

The appellate court, having assessed the said invoice according to the rules of Art. 71 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that it is a one-time purchase and sale transaction, since the supply agreement dated August 1, 2005 N 05090030-86, which the plaintiff refers to in the statement of claim, is not indicated as a basis for delivery in this invoice .

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the buyer is obliged to pay for the goods immediately before or after the seller transfers the goods to him, unless otherwise provided by this Code, another law, other legal acts or the purchase and sale agreement and does not follow from the essence of the obligation.

Since the delivery of goods under invoice No. 298179 dated August 11, 2005 was not carried out within the framework of contract No. 05090030-86 dated August 1, 2005, the appellate court came to the correct conclusion that the claims for the recovery of a penalty in the amount of 152,553 rubles. 31 kopecks based on the specified agreement are not subject to satisfaction..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated July 22, 2002 N KG-A40/4597-02

"...By the decision of March 6, 2002 of the Moscow Arbitration Court, left unchanged by the decision of the appellate instance of the same court of May 8, 2002, the claim of ORFE CJSC for the recovery of 180,734 rubles from Kubanmedstrakh-Pharmacy LLC was satisfied. , constituting the debt for medical products supplied in pursuance of contract No. 46/98k dated February 6, 1998 under invoices No. 9801171 and 9801167.

Recognizing the claims as subject to satisfaction, the courts of the first and appellate instances proceeded from the fact that the controversial relationship arose from one-time purchase and sale transactions, since invoices No. 9801171 and 9801167 do not contain references to the agreement of February 6, 1998 No. 46/98k, and the defendant had to make payment for the received products within the time limits established by Article 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In resolving this dispute, the courts of first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively examined the evidence presented, established all the circumstances relevant to the case, made correct conclusions both about the nature of the disputed relationship and the existence of grounds for satisfying the claims, and did not commit violations of any norms substantive law, nor procedural law..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated October 12, 2009 N F09-7749/09-C3 in case N A50-5692/2009

"...As follows from the case materials, on January 17, 2008, supply agreement No. 07 was concluded between the Permzheltrans-Service company (supplier) and the Perm Motor Locomotive Repair Plant Remputmash company (customer), in accordance with clause 1.1 of which the supplier obliged deliver, and the customer accepts and pays for, the products in accordance with the specifications, which are an integral part of the contract.

The arbitration court found that the company "Permzheltrans-service" delivered to the company "Perm Locomotive Repair Plant "Remputmash" goods according to the invoice dated 10/08/2008 N 19 in the amount of 3,003,890 rubles. 60 kopecks.

Since the company "Perm Motor Locomotive Repair Plant "Remputmash" did not pay the cost of the goods supplied, the company "Permzheltrans-service", in accordance with clause 7.2 of the supply agreement dated January 17, 2008 N 07, sent a claim to the customer dated January 19, 2009 N 006 with a voluntary offer order to repay the debt in the amount of 3,003,890 rubles and pay interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the amount of 96,289 rubles.

Due to the failure of the Perm Motor Locomotive Repair Plant Remputmash company to comply with the requirements set out in the claim, the Permzheltrans-service company appealed to the arbitration court with this statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal recognized the satisfaction of the claims of the Permzheltrans-service company as lawful, but at the same time pointed out that in in this case there was a one-time supply of goods, since the disputed delivery note does not contain a reference to the supply agreement dated January 17, 2008 N 07.

The conclusion of the court of appeal is correct and is confirmed by the materials of the case..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated March 3, 2009 N F09-866/09-C5 in case N A60-14932/2008-C9

"...Resolving the dispute, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the case materials did not contain specifications for the contract dated January 24, 2008 N 3-642/08, the mentioned invoices do not contain references to the contract, therefore the transfer of goods under them should be considered as one-time sales transactions...

The terms of the agreement dated January 24, 2008 N 3-642/08 are not subject to application to the legal relations of the parties for the supply of goods under invoices dated December 28, 2007 N 92 and dated February 26, 2008 N 1288, since the transfer of goods under them is qualified by the court as one-time sales transactions . Accordingly, the relations of the parties are regulated by Ch. 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which does not exclude the possibility of payment for the goods after they are transferred to the buyer..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated January 15, 2009 N F09-10351/08-C5 in case N A71-3636/2008

"...As established by the court, the Tsentrmetall-Orenburg company (supplier) and the Bashavtotrans enterprise (buyer) signed an agreement for the supply of products dated 01.06.2007 N 093/1, under the terms of which the supplier, during the validity period of the said agreement, undertakes deliver, and the buyer accepts and pays for the products in the manner and within the terms stipulated by the terms of the contract. The range, quantity and price of products are agreed upon by the parties through negotiations and are indicated in the invoices, which are an integral part of the contract (clause 1.3 of this contract).

The terms of the purchase and sale agreement regarding the goods are considered agreed upon if the agreement makes it possible to determine the name and quantity of the goods (clause 3 of Article 455 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The court found that in the invoices submitted by the Tsentrmetall-Orenburg company in support of the claim, there is no reference to the agreement dated 01.06.2007 N 093/1. The plaintiff did not provide any other evidence confirming the fact that the parties agreed on the name and quantity of the goods that are the subject of delivery under this agreement (Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Consequently, as correctly stated by the court of appeal, a relationship arose between the parties regarding the supply of goods under one-time transactions (Article 506 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation)..."

Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated June 26, 2006 N F09-5306/06-C5 in case N A71-480/05

"...Having established that the fact of delivery of goods under one-time transactions is confirmed by invoices, in which there are marks (signature and seal of the defendant) about receipt of the goods, the calculation of the debt was carried out by the plaintiff correctly, the defendant did not provide evidence of full payment for the goods received from the plaintiff, the courts reasonably , in accordance with Articles 309, 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, satisfied the claims.

The arguments of the applicant of the cassation appeal that the delivery of goods was carried out within the framework of the supply agreement dated November 1, 2004, and not under one-time sales transactions, are rejected, since the invoices do not contain references to the said agreement.

The cassation court believes that the arbitration court resolved the dispute in accordance with the current legislation, the factual circumstances of the case were established on the basis of a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the evidence presented, and the court's conclusions correspond to these circumstances. Violations of substantive and procedural law, which, by virtue of Art. 288 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation may be the basis for the annulment of judicial acts, it has not been established..."

In Review of Judicial Practice No. 5, approved in December 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) summarized the practice in controversial cases in various legal areas. Thus, the RF Supreme Court considered the procedure for resolving disputes regarding the fulfillment of obligations. In paragraph 8 of the review, the Supreme Court explains that failure to pay for goods by the buyer when the seller fulfills its obligations in good faith is considered a significant violation of the terms of sale.

As an example, the review cites the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (N 5-КГ17-13) on the claim of a woman who sold her land and house, but never received the payment stipulated by the agreement from the buyer.

History of the proceedings

The woman filed a statement of claim in court, in which she asked for the termination of the purchase and sale agreement concluded with the defendant and the return real estate transferred to him under the contract.

The plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the buyer, according to which the latter was to receive a residential house and a plot of land and transfer to the woman the amount of money specified in the agreement. The plaintiff fulfilled her part of her obligations in full. The transfer of ownership to the buyer was duly registered, however, the buyer did not pay for the real estate, which, according to the plaintiff, significantly violated the terms of the concluded agreement.

At the first hearing of the case, the court satisfied the woman’s demands. The court justified its decision by the fact that as a result of the defendant’s long-term failure to fulfill the obligation to pay for the acquired property, the plaintiff largely lost what she had hoped for when concluding the contract. The court considered this violation to be significant and recognized the woman’s right to demand termination of the contract and the return of the property transferred to the buyer.

The next instance expressed a different opinion. The appeal resulted in a new decision and the woman’s demands were left unsatisfied. The court did not dispute the fact that the buyer did not fulfill the accepted obligation to pay for the property, but considered that this violation of the contract was not significant.

In making its decision, the court referred to Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and indicated: the fact that the goods were not paid for by the buyer does not give rise to the plaintiff’s right to terminate the contract, but only gives rise to the right to demand payment for the house and plot and the recovery of interest in in the prescribed manner. Also, in refusing the plaintiff, the court applied the explanations contained in paragraph 65 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated April 2010 N 10/22 (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 10/22). Paragraph 65 of Resolution No. 10/22 states that by virtue of Art. 453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the parties to the proceedings cannot demand the return of what they performed under the obligation before the change or termination of the contract, unless other rules are determined by law or agreement.

Conclusions of the RF Armed Forces

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the conclusion of the appellate court contradicts the norms of the law, namely the rules of Art. 450 Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This article stipulates that a violation of the contract is considered significant if, due to which the other party receives damage, due to which it is significantly deprived of what it could have counted on when concluding the agreement. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained: when assessing the significance of the violation committed by the buyer, the court had to proceed from the fact that the plaintiff did not receive any payment for the plot and building, and therefore obviously lost what she expected to receive when concluding the contract.

Regarding the conclusion of the appeal that the fact of non-payment of land and house gives the plaintiff only the right to insist on payment of real estate and recovery of interest, the Supreme Court indicated that such a conclusion is erroneous and follows from an incorrect interpretation of Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It does not follow from the meaning of this article that if the buyer refuses to pay for the goods, the seller does not have the right to demand termination of the contract on the grounds provided for in Art. 450 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The RF Supreme Court also pointed out that the appeal had incorrectly applied the explanation of Resolution No. 10/22. In accordance with Art. 1103 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules on unjust enrichment are applicable to the demands of one party to an obligation to the other party for the return of what has been performed in connection with this obligation. Accordingly, upon termination of the agreement, the seller has the right to insist on the return of the goods transferred to the buyer if these goods have not been paid for.

Thus, the RF Supreme Court clarified that the seller has the right to terminate the contract if the buyer refuses to pay for the goods. The court determined that failure to pay for the goods received is a significant violation of the sales contract; on this basis, the seller has the right to demand termination of the contract in court. At the same time, this circumstance does not exclude the possibility for the seller to demand protection of rights in a different manner, by collecting the amount of debt under the contract and interest accrued on the amount of the debt.

It is noteworthy that the RF Armed Forces previously had a different position on the issue under consideration. For example, in a similar dispute about non-payment of the purchase price for an apartment, considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2011 (definition No. 5-B11-27), the Supreme Court determined that non-payment for goods does not relate to significant violations of the terms of the purchase and sale agreement.

It is expected that the latest clarifications of the RF Armed Forces will be actively applied by the courts and will serve additional tool protection of the rights of the seller who has fulfilled his obligations in good faith in the event that these rights are violated by non-payment for the goods.

Lead Counsel

LLC "Legal Service Center"

Brazhnikov Vladimir Sergeevich

Considering the specifics of the situation, it is not so easy to invalidate a previously signed contract for the sale and purchase of a car. The court does not always side with the injured party. But still, if the plaintiff is confident that he is right, it is worth trying to restore justice. So how often do cases involving the termination of a car’s contractual agreement occur in court, and how large a percentage of court cases regarding the recognition of a car purchase and sale agreement are resolved with a positive outcome for the plaintiff? We will answer this question in this article, and also consider examples from positive judicial practice on the termination of a car contract.

Judicial statistics

Judicial statistics data characterize many aspects of the socio-economic life of citizens, and allow, based on analysis, to increase the efficiency of the activities of law enforcement officers, courts, and justice authorities aimed at ensuring the rule of law, including purchase and sale transactions of vehicles. The website of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has collected statistical data on the activities of all categories of courts since 2007. At the same time, on the official websites of each court, from district courts to the Supreme Arbitration Court, statistics are collected on those cases that were considered in this particular court. According to the State automated system Since January 1, 2017, the Russian Federation “Justice” has considered more than a thousand claims in the first instance in cases of termination of a car purchase and sale agreement. And the following decisions were made on them:

• Refusal to satisfy the claim - 317;
• Partial satisfaction of the claim - 284;
• Satisfaction of the claim - 249;
• Leaving the claim without consideration - 71;
• Other decisions, including return of the claim to the applicant, termination of proceedings, transfer of the claim to jurisdiction, etc. - 98.

However, not all cases resolved a dispute between individuals. The plaintiff could be individual, and legal (organization), the defendant is exactly the same. Largest quantity Such cases were considered in the Republic of Tatarstan (73), and of these, only in 14 cases were the applicant’s demands fully satisfied. In second place in the number of such claims is the Krasnoyarsk Territory (48), third place is shared by the Moscow Region and Nizhny Novgorod region (46).

Example of refusal to satisfy a claim

Citizen Ipatova A.V. filed a claim against Vega Automobile Trading House LLC demanding a refund for the paid goods (447,600 rubles), compensation for repair work during the operation of the car (10,600 rubles), compensation for costs under the loan agreement (12,624 rubles) and pay moral damages (150,000 rubles). The essence of the claims was as follows: citizen Ipatova acquired vehicle at the specified car dealership. During operation, according to the plaintiffs, significant shortcomings were discovered in the car during operation: increased noise in the gearbox, the thermostat required replacement, the engine malfunction lamp periodically came on, and the ball joint failed.

Citizen Ipatova repeatedly resorted to repair services, but the problems were not eliminated. Considering further travel unsafe, Ipatova A.V. went to court in order to recover the funds spent on the purchase and repairs. A representative of the car dealership presented evidence that the plaintiff applied for warranty repairs, but refused to pay for services outside of the guarantee. In addition, there were cases of appeals on flimsy pretexts. After repair work has been carried out, there is no information about the vehicle’s manufacturing deficiencies.

During the trial, it was established that the car had no damage or manufacturing defects. For this reason, there are no grounds for terminating the purchase and sale agreement; claims for compensation for repair costs and moral damage are not justified. Thus, the Ulyanovsk Regional Court made a decision in case No. 33-363/2011 in the claim of A.V. Ipatova. refuse. In turn, the defendant asked to recover funds from citizen Ipatova to cover the costs of conducting expert work and hiring a representative for legal issues. The defendant’s expenses for conducting a technical examination (45,000 rubles) and attracting a representative (10,000 rubles) were satisfied at the expense of the plaintiff, citizen A.V. Ipatova.

Example of partial satisfaction of a claim

Citizen Alaeva O.G. went to court regarding the recovery of the cost of the car, compensation amount from the car dealership, termination of the car purchase and sale agreement, as well as compensation for moral damage. The reason for the complaint is the improper condition of the vehicle, discovered during its operation. Citizen Alaeva noticed that after rain or washing, water accumulated in the trunk of the vehicle and turned to the defendant for help, which was recorded in work order No. 000. The breakdown could not be fixed and the plaintiff filed a claim demanding termination of the contract, to which she never received a response.

Referring to Art. Art. 13-15, 17, 18, 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, the plaintiff asked the court to terminate the purchase and sale agreement and oblige the organization to pay her monetary compensation in in full. Based on the materials of the case, as well as on the results of the examination, the Kalininsky District Court of Cheboksary made a decision in case No. 2-945-11, namely, to release citizen Alaeva from execution of the sale and purchase agreement, to recover from the car dealership the cost of the car, a penalty, and also partially satisfy claims for compensation for moral damage.

Example of full satisfaction of a claim

Citizen Nevmerzhitsky A.N. filed a claim with the judicial authorities against citizen V.V. Zlotnikova. The subject of the dispute was a car purchased using forged documents. Nevmerzhitsky A.N. expressed his desire to terminate the transport purchase and sale agreement, return the funds spent, compensate legal costs and expenses for the representative, and also compensate for moral damages. During the trial, the plaintiff clarified the claims regarding the recovery of damages, and asked to recover 500,000 rubles from the defendant. losses.

The court found that after receiving ownership of the car, Nevmerzhitsky A.N. was stopped by a traffic police officer and when checking the documents presented, it turned out that the STS, GTO coupon and numbered units showed signs of being counterfeit. A criminal case was opened on this fact, and the vehicle and documents were seized for storage by the traffic police. Zlotnikova, being the seller, is responsible for the seized property and the damage suffered by the applicant, therefore the contract is subject to termination.

Based on the materials of the criminal case, the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant, witness testimony and guided by legislative norms, the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk made a decision in case No. 2-75/14, namely, to satisfy all the claims of citizen A.N. Nevmerzhitsky, to terminate the DCP , to recover 500,000 rubles in favor of the plaintiff, as well as in favor of the local budget a state duty in the amount of 6,350 rubles.

Conclusion

Analyzing judicial practice on disputes in the field of purchase and sale of cars, we can conclude that the law often sides not only with the plaintiff. But this only applies to cases of unjustified demands or excessively inflated amounts of penalties. If the applicant’s evidence is undeniable, the court will undoubtedly make a positive decision in satisfying the claim. Detection of fraudulent actions is fraught with administrative consequences.

Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is “imprinting”.

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

3 comments

System and observer

Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.

The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.

An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.

The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice—the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.