Nikolaev agreed with Krylov about buying a TV. Nikolaev handed Krylov an advance payment and declared that he would come next day at the TV. However, during the week Nikolaev never arrived at the TV. Krylov called Nikolayev and suggested that his acquaintance Krylov Romanov deliver the TV to Nikolaev, to whom Nikolaev would give the rest of the purchase price. Nikolaev agreed.
During the transportation of the TV, Romanov's car had an accident, and the TV was broken. Learning about this, Nikolaev demanded the return of the advance, but Krylov refused, stating that the accident was found to be due to Romanov’s fault, and Nikolaev himself agreed to such a shipment. In addition, Krylov demanded from Nikolayev full payment of the purchase price, suggesting that Nikolaev recover damages from Romanov for the death of his television set.
Who is right in this dispute?
Would the decision be changed if it were not for Krylov, but Nikolaev, with the consent of Krylov, sent his acquaintance behind the television set and the television set would be broken under similar circumstances?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.