July 26 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal once again found our arguments justified and rejected the customer’s appeal.

The Principal contacted us for the purpose of his defense in a contract dispute against the customer’s unfounded demand for a penalty of more than 20 million rubles for late performance of work.

Thanks to a detailed study of the case materials and the correct determination of the grounds for recognizing them as unfounded, Maria managed to beat off the customer’s demands; the court completely refused to collect penalty in the amount of 20 million ruble. In addition, the counterclaims presented to the customer for recovery of debt for work and compensation for expenses on building materials in the total amount of over 11 million rubles were fully satisfied by the court.

The other day, an appeal was considered by the customer, who fought for 20 million rubles in penalties and argued for unjustified recovery of contractor’s expenses for building materials. At the appeal stage, Maria once again confirmed the correctness of her counter–arguments to the customer’s claim and the legality of counterclaims, as a result of which a complete victory – the appeal was denied, the decision in favor of our Principal entered into legal force.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support of Contractual and Judicial Work of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court has rejected claims against the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” in the amount of over 4.9 million.

The contractor, who completed work under a construction contract for a preschool education facility, demanded payment of guarantee retention, as he believed that the warranty periods for the work he had completed had expired. However, during the consideration of the case, it turned out that in fact the work was performed with defects that have not been eliminated by the Contractor so far, which entails an extension of the warranty period for the entire period of their elimination.

Agreeing with the above arguments, the court considered the claim filed by the opponents to be premature and refused to satisfy it in full.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the Department for Economic Disputes.