Sun explained that the contract of sale may be terminated due to non-payment of goods. Litigation guide: buying and selling

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

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

Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, 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. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.

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

3 comments

System and Observer

Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section 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 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 randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer

It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from 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.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

A feature of sales contracts is the presence of a huge number of its legal structures and types, ranging from retail sales contracts to sales contracts (contracts) of business assets, shares and participation interests (the subject of the latter is virtual).

The concept of a contract

Contracts of sale (of goods) is a transaction in accordance with which the seller transfers the goods into the ownership of the buyer for the remuneration established by the contract. Based on a review of judicial practice, the objects of the contracts are the actions of the seller related to the transfer of ownership of the goods and the goods themselves, as well as the actions of the buyer, which indicate his acceptance and payment for the goods (Article 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The most common type of transactions in civil circulation is a retail sale and purchase agreement, which is carried out by citizens every day. In accordance with civil law (Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), it is prohibited to conclude retail sales contracts, as well as other types of transactions, the subject of which are goods that are limited in circulation, as well as prohibited for sale. Transactions that violate the above requirements of the law may be declared invalid by the court.

The Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 28, 2012 N 17 "On the consideration by the courts of civil cases on disputes on the protection of consumer rights" sets out the legal position, in accordance with which the rules for the sale of goods by business entities in which the buyer is citizens who purchase goods for personal needs (as a rule, these are retail sales contracts), the norms of the Civil Code of Russia and the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 N 2300-I “On Protection of Consumer Rights” apply.

An example of jurisprudence on a retail sale and purchase agreement, which explains the legal grounds for declaring it invalid:
The Perm Regional Court issued a ruling dated June 13, 2012 “On invalidating the retail sale contract 33-4041”, in which the plaintiff was denied satisfaction of the claims. The reason for the refusal was the fact that the product (vacuum cleaner) purchased under the sales contract was accepted by the buyer after its demonstration, and after making an advance payment under the contract, the remaining (full) amount for the goods was paid during the contractual period. The presence of significant defects in the goods or the impossibility of its use for its intended purpose was not supported by admissible evidence in court.

Invalidity of transactions

For some types of contracts, a written form is mandatory (a contract for the sale of a car, real estate), failure to comply with which may be a legal basis for invalidating the contract.

Certain types of contracts, such as a contract for the sale of real estate, must be executed in writing, and they are also subject to mandatory registration of the right to real estate, which is the subject of the contract. Judicial practice suggests that a fairly large number of contracts are declared invalid in the absence of state registration of rights, since the law provides for the need to register rights to real estate.

As the review of judicial practice shows, great importance is attached to the will of the parties when making a transaction. If the contract contains signs of an imaginary or sham transaction (Article 170 of the Civil Code of Russia) and the implementation of the will is not aimed at achieving the legal consequences that are reflected in the transaction, for example, under a contract for the sale of real estate, then such a transaction may be declared invalid by a court .

To complete a transaction that will have all the legal consequences associated with the achievement of the purpose of the transaction, the full legal capacity of the person who is a party to the contract is required. If it is proved that the party to the contract was an incapacitated person or one with limited legal capacity, such a transaction may be declared invalid. The court also determined the right: to apply all legal consequences of the invalidity of the transaction under the contract of sale, while the parties under the contract are brought to their original legal position that existed before the illegal transaction. This means that if, for example, the contract for the sale of an apartment is recognized as invalid, the seller is obliged to return the entire amount of funds received under the contract, and the buyer is obliged to return the apartment (land plot, real estate) to the seller.

Transactions that relate to contracts for the sale of real estate, the conclusion of which requires the consent of the guardianship and guardianship authorities (clause 2, article 37 of the Civil Code of Russia), without such consent, are void. Such categories of transactions include transactions that were made by a person with limited powers (Article 174 of the Civil Code of Russia), minors (Article 175 of the Civil Code of Russia), incapacitated persons (Article 176 of the Civil Code of Russia), committed by citizens who cannot understand the meaning of their actions (Article 177 of the Civil Code of Russia).

A contract for the sale of real estate, a car, etc., made under the influence of delusion (Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) is recognized as invalid. (Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. Information letter dated December 10, 2013 N 162. Review of the practice of application by arbitration courts of Articles 178 and 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In the event that a preliminary agreement was concluded, which determined the further grounds for concluding a sale and purchase agreement, if the main agreement is declared invalid, the preliminary agreement is also recognized as invalid. Preliminary contracts, as a rule, are concluded in order to provide guarantees that the main contract will subsequently be concluded on time and on the terms specified in the preliminary contract. This type of contract does not give rise to the rights and obligations that are reflected in the terms of the main contract, therefore, there are no legal grounds to recognize separately the preliminary contract as invalid if the main contract was concluded or executed in full or in part.

Preliminary contracts are concluded as an intention to conclude a subsequent sale and purchase transaction of real estate (land, apartment, etc.), car, supply, lease, transportation, etc.

Based on the analysis of judicial practice in resolving disputes related to the execution or invalidation of contracts for the sale of a car, real estate, apartment, furniture and other property, the following conclusions can be drawn. A contract for the sale of real estate is a legal fact that establishes, changes or terminates a certain amount of civil rights and obligations. During its conclusion, it is the responsibility of the parties to agree on all its conditions, which the parties define as essential.

Execution of contracts

One example of a court decision concerning the issue of performance of contracts is case No. 33-10 dated January 12, 2012 (Voronezh Regional Court), according to which the plaintiff (the Company) filed a claim for recognition of the refusal to perform the contract as lawful. In addition, a claim was made for the recovery of a sum of money related to losses, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a penalty for failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The essence of the dispute was that, in accordance with the contract for the sale of the car, warranty obligations for it were determined. After the conclusion of the contract of sale, as well as the completion of the transfer of the car, the plaintiff, in the process of using it, discovered certain shortcomings (engine noise) and some defects that were not noticeable during the initial inspection. The car was accepted by the defendant for warranty repair, however, the shortcomings indicated by the plaintiff were not actually eliminated. On this basis, the plaintiff refused to execute the contract for the sale of the car and filed the above claims.

Since the obligation to provide evidence to the court as a justification for their rightful position lies with the parties, and the sale and purchase agreement obliges each of the parties to fulfill their obligations, then in order to refuse to perform the contract, subjects of law must be provided with sufficient legal grounds that justify the impossibility of its execution. As was established by the court, in this case, the plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence that the car could not be operated, and that the contract for the sale of the car could not be executed. On the basis of the foregoing, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims in full.

The duty of proof in court proceedings

In most cases, when the dispute on the invalidation of a contract concerns contracts for the sale of a car, furniture, movable property, in accordance with Art. 224 of the Civil Code of Russia, such agreements are considered executed at the time of the transfer of property and money to each other by the parties to the legal relationship. The basis for the recognition of these types of contracts as invalid can only be the failure to fulfill their obligations by one of the parties. Judicial practice shows that in order to invalidate a contract for the sale of a car, it is not enough to have any defects in the car. A necessary condition for these legal grounds will be only the impossibility of using the car for its intended purpose. The same applies to other types of property, furniture or household items. The circumstances of the impossibility of using the property acquired under the sale and purchase agreement for the intended purpose must be proved in court with the provision of admissible evidence (forensic commodity examinations, engineering and technical examinations, expert opinions). Testimony of witnesses cannot be evidence in these cases.

It is necessary to prove the moment from which the property became unfit for use for its intended purpose, or the formation of a significant defect in it.

Sales contracts are governed by the provisions of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of Russia. Contracts for the sale of real estate are considered not concluded when they do not define mandatory conditions (requirements of Articles 554, 555 of the Civil Code of Russia). In accordance with these articles, such conditions are the subject of the contract and its price.

Based on the analysis of judicial practice, property, real estate, a car, if such is under encumbrance, cannot be the subjects of a contract of sale. In the manner prescribed by applicable law, if the encumbrance is registered in the State Register, then in order to complete the transaction, the removal of the encumbrance by the body or owner that imposed it must also be registered. The sale of real estate with an encumbrance is a very rare type of transaction.

Important: With the acquisition of real estate, restrictions (encumbrances) also pass to the new owner.

In the case when an apartment is alienated, which is a common shared property and the encumbrance is imposed only on the share of one of the owners, only the sale of the share that is not burdened with the prohibition is subject to alienation.

Based on the analysis of judicial practice, a fairly large percentage of decisions relate to forcing one of the parties under a contract for the sale of an apartment, real estate, car or furniture to fulfill monetary obligations. One example of such decisions is the decision of the Sernursky District Court of the Republic of Mari El in case No. 2-106 / 2015-M-99 / 2015, according to which the claims of citizen XXX were satisfied and the debt was collected from defendants 1 and 2 in the interests of the plaintiff contract for the sale of an apartment in the prescribed amount.

Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Contract of sale

1. Under a contract of sale, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer a thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay a certain amount of money (price) for it.
2. The provisions provided for by this paragraph shall apply to the purchase and sale of securities and currency valuables, unless special rules for their purchase and sale are established by law.
3. In the cases provided for by this Code or another law, the specifics of the purchase and sale of certain types of goods are determined by laws and other legal acts.
4. The provisions provided for by this paragraph shall apply to the sale of property rights, unless otherwise follows from the content or nature of these rights.
5. For certain types of sale and purchase agreement (retail sale, supply of goods, supply of goods for state needs, contracting, energy supply, sale of real estate, sale of an enterprise), the provisions provided for in this paragraph shall apply, unless otherwise provided by the rules of this Code on these types of contracts.

Coercion to conclude a contract for the sale of non-residential premises

ARBITRATION COURT OF MOSCOW

In the name of the Russian Federation

(extract)

The operative part of the decision was announced on 22.01.2007.
The full text of the decision was made on 29.01.2007.
The Arbitration Court, composed of the presiding judge N., the record was kept by the assistant judge P.GN, with the participation of: from the plaintiff - B. (dov. from 17.01.2007 b / n), from the defendant - P.Yu.V. (adv. dated 09.01.2007 N 07 / 05-7), from a third party - A. (adv. dated 11.11. property of the city of Moscow, 3rd person - DIGM, on compulsion to conclude a contract of sale,

SET UP:

Luna LLC filed a lawsuit against the State Unitary Enterprise for the sale of Moscow property to compel the defendant to conclude a contract for the sale of non-residential premises with an area of 525.6 sq. m (floor 1, room II, rooms 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4-9, 9a, 9b, 10 - 14, 14a, 15, 15a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a, 19 , 23, 23a, 24, 25), located at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, bldg. 1, at a price of 6628894 rubles. on the terms of the draft agreement attached to the claim, referring to the creation of a company in the process of privatizing the property of studio N 37 and the use of real estate on a leasehold basis.
The defendant rejected the claim, referring to the absence of a corresponding order of the DIGM, stated that the plaintiff did not apply for the purchase of real estate before the expiration of the period provided for in paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-ФЗ “On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property”, and on the impossibility of redeeming real estate after two years from the date of entry into force of this Law, and also challenged the redemption price of the property proposed by the plaintiff.
The 3rd person considers the claims unlawful, pointing out that the provisions of real estate lease agreements on the right to buy out this property became invalid from 04/27/2004, that the lease agreement No. leased property, stated that the market price of the immovable property in respect of which claims are made, at the present time is 34235593 RUB.
Disputing the arguments of the defendant and the 3rd party, the plaintiff referred to the established judicial practice in such disputes (decree of the FAS MO dated 04.10.2006 N KG-A40 / 9151-06).
Having considered the submitted documents and having heard the persons participating in the case, the court finds the requirements subject to satisfaction due to the following circumstances.
Luna LLC is the assignee of Luna Firm LLP, created in the process of privatization of studio No. 37 at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, building 1.
In accordance with the privatization plan, approved by the decision of the Territorial Agency of the Higher Administrative District of the Moscow Property Committee of April 10, 1992 N 6, Luna LLP, under the sale and purchase agreement of November 4, 1992 N 04-00239 / 92, bought out the fixed and working capital of the studio.
The privatization plan and the agreement dated 04.11.1992 N 04-00239/92 provide for the transfer of the studio premises to the partnership for rent with the right to buy them out in one year.
Rental use of the studio premises with an area of 527.9 sq. m is formalized by agreement dated February 15, 1995 N 4-108 / 95 between the Moscow Property Committee and the partnership.
As a result of the redevelopment of the premises, permitted by the order of the head of the Perovo district council of the city of Moscow dated March 25, 2004 N 109, the area of the leased premises has changed and amounted to 525.6 sq. m. m.
The lease agreement dated 15.02.1995 N 4-108/95 was concluded, as it is expressly stated in its text, on the basis of the sale and purchase agreement dated 04.11.1992 N 04-00239/92, therefore, the absence of a clause on the right of the tenant to redeem the occupied premises does not mean that the plaintiff is not subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property".
In accordance with paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property" if all the property of a state or municipal enterprise, with the exception of the building or non-residential premises in which this enterprise was located, was acquired before the entry into force of Chapter IV of Part of the first Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the simultaneous conclusion of a lease agreement providing for the possibility of buying out such a building or premises, the specified building or non-residential premises is subject to sale to the owner who has acquired all the property of the enterprise at market value.
With an application for the sale of the leased premises, the plaintiff applied to the Department of Property of the City of Moscow, authorized to make decisions on the sale of property of the City of Moscow, on 04/06/2004 (entry N 70-124 / 04) - before the expiration of the established two-year period for exercising the right to buy out the premises.
The market value of the premises rented by the plaintiff during this period was 6,628,894 rubles, which is confirmed by the appraisal report N 04-0117-0044 / 04-1, compiled by PBOYuL Z. on the instructions of the DIGM.
The plaintiff cannot bear negative consequences due to the rise in the price of real estate during the period when the DIGM avoids making a decision to sell the property, therefore, the redemption price of the property should be determined based on its market price at the time the plaintiff applied for a buyout.
The objections of the defendant and the 3rd person are given without taking into account the established judicial practice (Decree of the FAS MO dated 04.10.2006 N KG-A40 / 9151-06), and therefore are subject to rejection.
The costs of the state duty must be attributed to the defendant, however, he is exempted from paying it, therefore, the state duty paid when filing a claim is refundable.
Guided by Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property", art. Art. 8, 12, 195, 196, 199, 200, 217, 432, 445 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. Art. 65, 104, 105, 110, 167, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181 APC RF, court

to oblige the State Unitary Enterprise for the sale of Moscow property to conclude an agreement for the sale and purchase of non-residential premises with an area of 525.6 sq. m. with Luna LLC. m (floor 1, room II, rooms 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4 - 9, 9a, 9b, 10 - 14, 14a, 15, 15a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a, 19 , 23, 23a, 24, 25), located at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, bldg. 1, at a price of 6628894 rubles.
Return LLC "Luna" from the federal budget 2000 (two thousand) rubles. state duty.
The decision can be appealed within one month to the arbitration court of appeal.

Recovery of the amount of debt and interest for the use of other people's funds under a surety agreement concluded for the purpose of executing a contract for the sale of real estate

ARBITRATION COURT OF MOSCOW

In the name of the Russian Federation

The operative part was announced on October 08, 2007.
The date of manufacture of the decision in full is October 12, 2007.
Arbitration Court of Moscow consisting of:
Presiding: A.
members of the court: alone
during the record keeping by Judge A.
with the participation of representatives:
from the plaintiff: B. - pass.
from the defendants: P. - beats. 8926, dov. from 22.03.2007 dov. dated 03/22/2007, G. - passport, dov. dated 06/19/2007, dov. dated 06/19/2007, dov. dated May 25, 2007
considered the case on the claim of RAMENKA LLC
to American Traders LLC; OOO Seventh Point; OOO Magazin N 40 "Sollolaki"
for the recovery jointly and severally 52 171 895 RUB. 01 kop.
The court clarified the procedural rights and obligations, as well as the right to challenge, the right to consider the case with the participation of arbitration assessors, to refer the dispute to arbitration, the right to apply to a mediator to resolve the dispute, to conclude a settlement agreement.
The court session was adjourned from 03.10.2007 to 08.10.2007.

installed:

claim filed for recovery from the defendants jointly and severally 52 171 895 RUB. 01 kopecks, amounting to 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kop. debt and 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. interest for the use of other people's funds until March 27, 2007, due to non-fulfillment of agreement No. 1 / 2006-3 of June 30, 2006.
The case is being considered after the abolition of the FAS MO.
By decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated March 30, 2007, 52,171,895 rubles were recovered from the defendants in solidarity. 01 kop., including: 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kop. debt and 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. percent, as well as 100,000 rubles. state duty expenses.
By the decision of the FAS MO of 06.07.2007 N KG-A40 / 6200-07, the court decision in case N A40-59341 / 06-89-469 of 30.03.2007 was canceled and the case was submitted for a new trial. This decision states that the court did not examine clause 3.2, according to which the guarantor is not liable to the creditor for the fulfillment of the debtor's obligation secured by this agreement, if, through the creditor's fault, a real estate purchase and sale agreement is not concluded between the creditor and the guarantor. In view of the foregoing, the court of first instance must take into account the above and adopt a lawful and justified judicial act in the case.
The plaintiff supported the claims. The defendant objected to the satisfaction of the claim, on the grounds set forth in the response.
Fulfilling the instructions of the FAS MO, having considered the materials of the case, having listened to the arguments of the representative of the plaintiff, having evaluated the evidence presented, considers that the claims are subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
As seen from the case file, between the plaintiff, the defendant American Traders LLC and Seventh Continent LLC, agreement No. 1/2006-3 dated 06/30/2006 (case file 39-40) was concluded.
By clause 5 of agreement 1/2006-3 dated June 30, 2006, the former owner (defendant American Traders LLC) undertook to return to the tenant (the plaintiff in this dispute) the amount of outstanding advances.
Clause 2 of Agreement No. 1/2006-3 dated 30.06.06 established that the amounts of advance payments not offset as rent under lease agreements No. 02/2002 dated 28.01.2002; N 01/2002 dated January 28, 2002; N 01/2004/E dated September 30, 2004, are indicated in the reconciliation report N 1/AT dated June 30, 2006, signed between the defendant American Traders LLC and the claimant Ramenka LLC.
From paragraph 1.3. reconciliation act N 1 / AT dated June 30, 2006, it is seen that the total amount of uncredited advances is 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kopecks, including: 22,940,486.11 rubles. uncredited advance under lease agreement N 02/2002 dated 01/28/2002, 24,516,252 rubles. 74 kop. uncredited advance under lease agreement N 01/2002 dated January 28, 2002 and 1,724,676 rubles. 82 kopecks, uncredited advance under the lease agreement N 01/2004 / E dated September 30, 2004.
In order to ensure the fulfillment by the defendant - American Traders LLC of obligations under agreement 1/2006-3 dated 06/30/2006, surety agreements were concluded.
Guarantee agreement N 1/2006-P dated 06/30/2006 concluded between the plaintiff - RAMENKA LLC and the defendant Seventh Point LLC and guarantee agreement N 1-1/2006-P dated 06/30/2006 concluded between the plaintiff - LLC "RAMENKA" and the defendant LLC Magazin N 40 "Sollolaki".
In accordance with the terms of the said surety agreements, the guarantors (defendants in this dispute) - Magazin N 40 Sollolaki LLC and Seventh Point LLC, undertook to be liable to the creditor (plaintiff) for the fulfillment by the defendant - American Traders LLC of monetary obligations arising from agreement dated June 30, 2006 N 1/2006-3 in the same scope as the debtor (defendant) American Traders LLC, but not limited to the payment of interest, reimbursement of legal costs for the collection of debt and other losses of creditors in full caused by non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations by the debtor and transfer the amount of the debt within 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the creditor's demand (clauses 1.2 and 2.1 of surety agreements).
In accordance with Art. 363 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in case of non-performance or improper performance by the debtor of the obligation secured by the guarantee, the guarantor and the debtor shall be jointly and severally liable to the creditor. The guarantor is liable to the creditor to the same extent as the debtor, including the payment of interest caused by non-performance or improper performance of the obligation by the debtor, unless otherwise provided by the surety agreement.
According to clause 1.3. surety agreements, the liability of the guarantors to the creditor is joint and several.
As seen from the case file, the plaintiff sent telegrams to the defendants demanding payment of funds in the total amount of 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kopecks, which were received by the defendants on 08.08.2006, which is confirmed by notifications of delivery of the telegram. In addition, the plaintiff sent registered letters to the defendants with similar demands.
The defendants did not respond to the plaintiff's demands, the debt was not repaid.
The court considers the plaintiff's arguments reasonable and proven, while according to Article. Art. 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be properly performed in accordance with the terms of the obligation, a unilateral refusal to fulfill the obligation is not allowed.
The court cannot accept the arguments of the defendants that the obligations of the guarantors have ceased, since it was precisely through the fault of the plaintiff that the contracts for the sale of real estate objects were not concluded: under the contracts of surety dated 30.06.2006 N 1 / 2006-P at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd , Savelkinsky proezd, 8 and dated June 30, 2006, 1-1 / 2006-P at the address: Moscow, Leningradsky pr-t, 78, bldg. 1. In addition, the defendants also refer to the fact that the surety agreements are concluded under a resolutive condition, which is provided for in paragraph 3.2. agreements from which it follows, as already indicated above, that the guarantor is not liable to the creditor for the fulfillment of the obligation of the debtor secured by this agreement (American Traders LLC), in the event that, through the fault of the creditor, purchase and sale agreements are not concluded between the creditor and the guarantors real estate objects.
The court cannot agree with the defendant's arguments that these agreements were concluded under a resolutive condition.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 157 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to which the defendants refer, according to which - the transaction is considered to be completed under a resolutive condition if the parties have made the termination of rights and obligations dependent on a circumstance regarding which it is not known whether it will occur or not. Thus, this rule says that the condition must be a circumstance depending on the will of the parties, that is, the parties cannot know whether this circumstance will occur or not. In addition, the conclusion of an agreement is primarily the will of the parties expressed in writing, thus the conclusion of sales contracts by the parties under surety agreements depends only on the will of the parties, based on the foregoing, the defendants' reference to clause 3.2. surety agreements is invalid.
At the same time, the condition of clause 3.2. of the contract in terms of its execution by the parties, the court considers that the fulfillment by the guarantors of obligations under surety agreements is made dependent not on the circumstances of the failure to conclude a sale and purchase agreement, but on the fault of the creditor in their failure to conclude. According to the meaning and content of Art. 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - fault (intent or negligence) is an element of liability and cannot be related to circumstances with the onset of which the parties can establish the occurrence of any obligations. By virtue of paragraph 2 of Art. 157 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - the fault of the creditor cannot be a circumstance about which the parties do not know and cannot know whether it will come or not.
In accordance with paragraph 1. Art. 549 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - under a contract for the sale of real estate (a contract for the sale of property), the seller undertakes to transfer a land plot, building, structure, apartment or other real property into the ownership of the buyer.
In accordance with Art. 131 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of ownership and other real rights to real estate, restrictions on these rights, their occurrence, transfer and termination are subject to state registration in the Unified State Register of Rights to Real Estate and transactions with it management, the right of lifetime inheritable possession, the right of permanent use, mortgage, easements, as well as other rights in cases provided for by this Code and other laws.
After examining the documents submitted by the parties, the court did not establish the creditor's guilt before the guarantors in the failure to conclude sales contracts.
In accordance with Art. 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation - each person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis for his claims and objections.
The defendants, in turn, did not provide evidence that the plaintiff did not intend to conclude sales contracts, on the contrary, the correspondence of the parties is presented in the case file, from which it is seen that Ramenka LLC intends to conclude sales contracts and also offered to hold a meeting in in order to agree on a payment schedule
In connection with the foregoing, the court considers lawful, justified and subject to satisfaction the plaintiff's claim for the recovery jointly and severally 49 181 415 RUB. 69 kopecks, since the plaintiff's fault in the failure to conclude contracts has not been established, and the refusal to fulfill obligations is contrary to Art. Art. 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in this case, from the fulfillment by the defendants of obligations under surety agreements in terms of paying the debt.
In connection with the non-payment of the debt, the plaintiff declares a claim for the recovery of interest for the use of someone else's money in accordance with Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the amount of 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. until 27.03.2007 at the rate of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 10.5% per annum and asks to recover the specified amount from the defendants jointly and severally referring to paragraph 1.2. surety agreements.
The court considers justified the plaintiff's claim to recover from the defendants jointly and severally interest for the use of other people's money in the stated amount of 2 990 479 RUB. 32 kopecks, since there was a failure to fulfill a monetary obligation by the defendants.
In accordance with Art. 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the costs of the state duty incurred by the plaintiff are subject to recovery from the defendants in full, since the requirements stated in the claim are justified.
Court, guided by Article. Art. 8, 12, 131, 157, 307, 309, 310, 363, 395, 429, 549 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. Art. 4, 65, 75, 49, 110, 121, 123, 156, 170 - 175 APC RF,

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

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

3 comments

System and Observer

Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.

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

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

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

Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye

Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer

Time flow

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

In recent years, one of the most common transactions in the country has become a transaction related to the purchase and sale of real estate. Many citizens seek to sell their property for various reasons. Some cannot support it because of the high cost of utilities, others want to earn money for it to ensure their livelihoods.

What's this?

At its core, a “purchase and sale transaction” is the transfer of ownership by one person to another of real estate for a certain amount of money. Its meaning lies in the performance of certain legally significant actions.

In the course of its implementation, the interested parties sign a contract of sale. It specifies the terms of the transaction, the procedure for its completion, the rights and obligations of the participants in the transaction, their responsibility. If the buyer gives the price set by the seller for the property, then the contract of sale obliges him to transfer the property to the buyer. He, in turn, undertakes to accept it by paying the money.

Civil Code regulations

In many cases, the difficult question arises of challenging the contract of an already completed transaction. If a real estate purchase and sale agreement is declared invalid by a judicial authority, then it does not bear any legal consequences from the moment it is signed. The norm is provided for in the instructions of Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which regulate issues regarding transactions.

From the point of view of jurisprudence, a transaction can be:

voidable;
insignificant.

In the first case, the transaction is declared invalid by the judicial authority if the interested party presents compelling legal grounds.

The procedure for challenging the transaction involves the appeal of interested parties with a statement of claim to the judicial authority. At the same time, they declare that their interests in relation to real estate were not taken into account or violated when the contract of sale was concluded.

For example, such a claim can be filed by the heir to the property of a deceased person, if his right to dispose of it was not taken into account. He has the right to file a claim with the judicial authority for the recognition of the transaction as invalid.

The possibility of resolving the disputed situation as a result of pre-trial regulation is not excluded. In the case of a disputed transaction, the interested person retains the right to choose how to resolve the conflict.

The second case concerns transactions that were made with a clear violation of the norms of legal acts. She had no reason to commit, so the contract should not be concluded. The circumstance implies the indisputability and unambiguity of the invalidity of the transaction. For example, as a result of a transaction, real estate owned by a minor was sold.

The action is considered illegal, therefore, if such a fact is revealed, the transaction becomes null and void. But the invalidation of the contract is carried out in the course of litigation at the request of a legal representative who has not reached the age of majority.

Often, fraudulent schemes are carried out in the course of an imaginary transaction.. It means creating the appearance of a transaction that does not entail legal consequences. For example, real estate is re-registered to a nominee due to various factors. As for a sham transaction, it is done in order to cover up another transaction. For example, the sale of real estate is carried out under the guise of a donation procedure.

Grounds for contesting a real estate purchase and sale transaction

Issues regarding the recognition of a contract for the sale of real estate concluded between individuals as invalid are regulated by the standards of Chapter 9 of the Civil Code. The transaction can be challenged only by filing a claim with the judicial authority. The grounds for challenging the concluded contract for purchase and sale transactions are provided by the legislator in the above act.

These include the transaction:

without the consent required by law, which must be given by a third party or a state executive body in accordance with Article 173.1 of the Civil Code. For example, an apartment was sold without obtaining permission from the recipient of the rent;
a person who has not reached the age of majority, as noted in the regulations of Article 175 of the Civil Code. For example, a property was sold without parental permission by a person who is 16 years of age;
legal representatives of a minor without the permission of the guardianship and guardianship authority, as noted in Article 176 of the Civil Code;
a person who has been recognized as having limited legal capacity in accordance with the provisions of Article 176. The permission of the guardianship and guardianship authority is required;
by a person who did not understand his actions, did not realize their consequences, could not manage them, the norm is provided for in the instructions of Article 177 of the Civil Code. For example, the sale of real estate under the influence of alcohol or drugs, being in a state of passion;
under the influence of someone else's will in accordance with the standards of Article 178 of the Civil Code. As a rule, the terms of the transaction incorrectly or distortedly express the will of one of its participants. For example, he would not make a deal if he had genuine information about the property being acquired;
under the influence of coercion, blackmail, intimidation, or the owner was forced to sell the property as a result of the formation of difficult life circumstances. This kind of transaction belongs to the category of "bondage", as indicated in Article 179 of the Civil Code. For example, deliberate use by the buyer of his advantageous position;
by one of the spouses without obtaining consent to the sale of real estate from the second spouse, if it is property jointly acquired in an official marriage;
one of the heirs, when the property was sold without obtaining the consent of other heirs, who have equal rights with him to the inheritance property.

As case law shows, from 5 to 15% concluded transactions related to the sale and purchase of real estate are disputed during the trial. At the same time, most of the transactions made are recognized by the judicial authority as invalid or void.

Timing

The legislator has established a different limitation period for a statement of claim regarding a voidable and void transaction. The limitation period for a voidable transaction is one year, for a void transaction it is 3 years.

If necessary, a subsequent increase in the term to 10 years is provided, as noted in Article 181 of the Civil Code.

In the first case, the period is counted from the moment when information previously unknown to the interested person was received. In some cases, its countdown begins from the day on which various actions of a violent or threatening nature were stopped.

An imaginary or feigned transaction can be challenged further 3 years. In this case, the period is counted from the time of detection of violations committed in the preparation of the terms of the contract of sale or the discovery of new circumstances unknown at the time of its signing.

What can be done before the registration of the contract

As a rule, any transaction for the purchase and sale of real estate is accompanied by the receipt of a deposit, the signing of a preliminary contract. It is drawn up by analogy with the main contract. The purchaser has the right to apply to the judicial authority with a statement of claim if the seller has not fulfilled its conditions. It must contain a request for the treaty to be declared null and void.

As for the deposit, the seller is obliged to give a receipt on receipt of a certain amount of money from the acquirer. The best option is to get it certified by a notary public. It confirms the fact that the seller received money, therefore it is one of the mandatory documents.

If the buyer violated the terms of the contract, the deposit remains with the seller. It is necessary to take measures to cancel the contract of sale before it is submitted for registration. According to the standards of Article 433 of the Civil Code, it is considered concluded from the time when the FKP Rosreestr made a record of state registration. It is necessary to honor the fact that until it passes, the seller remains the owner of the property.

In accordance with the instructions of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of ownership of real estate, which is subject to mandatory registration, arises precisely from the moment of its implementation. If real estate is alienated, then, in accordance with the standards of Article 223, the right of ownership arises for its acquirer after the registration of the sale and purchase agreement in the FKP Rosreestr.

He may suspend the registration or terminate it, as noted in Article 19 of the Federal Law "On State Registration of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It". It is suspended when certain grounds are formed at the initiative of the right holder or the state registrar in accordance with the instructions of Article 20 of the above act.

The grounds for suspension or termination of the registration of the ownership of FKP Rosreestr include:

certain details and nuances that raised doubts with the registration authority regarding the authenticity of the submitted documents and the information contained in them. Under these circumstances, registration is suspended for one month;
submission of an application by the right holder, which expresses his request to suspend state registration with an indication of a good reason. As a rule, registration can be suspended for 3 months;
the seller's statement on the termination of state registration of ownership, which provides a reasonable reason for this kind of action. In the current situation, registration is delayed by one month;
the decision of the judicial authority, which, during the consideration of the case, establishes a period for suspension of the registration of property rights.

In any situation, the participants in the sale and purchase transaction are returned the documents that were submitted for registration of ownership. In this case, the termination of the contract of sale is not required, because it loses its legal force due to the termination of the registration of ownership. In conclusion, it should be noted that in the real estate market in recent years, a lot of unlawful things have been committed,. Citizens must follow the procedure for the implementation of the transaction of sale. They should study the terms of the signed contract well in order to avoid unforeseen situations.