July 13 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow satisfied the claim of the Principal on the obligation to conclude an additional agreement to the contract for the sale of real estate. Earlier, the Moscow Arbitration Court satisfied a claim for an obligation to conclude a contract for the sale of real estate between the parties, but the disputed premises were not included in the subject of the agreement. In this regard, the lawyers of the Bureau filed an additional claim. The Defendant’s position was that, according to the technical documentation, the disputed premises were considered as the main ones, therefore, they should be alienated in a general manner. During the trial, the lawyers of the Bureau presented and defended the legal position on the auxiliary nature of the real estate objects in question and the impossibility of full use in their absence of other premises transferred under the sale and purchase agreement. The Court agreed with these arguments and made a decision to satisfy the statement of claim, approving the draft supplementary agreement to the contract of sale of real estate prepared by the lawyers of the Bureau. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, head of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal satisfied the Principal’s complaint and recovered more than 12 million rubles in his favor. The litigation concerned the recovery of damages from the assignor for the transfer of rights under the contract, which was declared invalid due to violations of the auction procedure. Previously, the Principal, relying on the good faith of the parties to the disputed relationship, acquired, and subsequently assigned the rights under the specified agreement to another person. However, the latter could not use them due to their invalidity and demanded to return the price paid to the Principal. In turn, the Principal appealed to his assignor with a claim for damages. Despite the fact that the Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claim, pointing to the lack of proof of the composition of the damages and the omission of the statute of limitations, in the court of appeal, lawyers of the Bureau managed to prove the legality of the Plaintiff’s claims and the existence of grounds for satisfying the claim. Due to the developed legal position, the procedural opponent could not evade responsibility for the transfer of rights under an invalid transaction. Relying only on the formal content of the rules of law, the Defendant declared to the court that the composition of damages was not proven, that his guilt and illegal behavior were absent. Moreover, the procedural opponent practically persuaded the court of first instance to reclassify the Plaintiff’s claim for the recovery of unjustified enrichment. However, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal did not agree with this approach and considered the conclusions of the lower court to be erroneous. As a result, justice prevailed, and more than 12 million rubles were recovered in favor of the Principal. The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin, Senior lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.