Closed Joint Stock Company appealed to the arbitration
📂 For Education Students
👤 HotRef
Product Description
A closed joint stock company appealed to an arbitration court with a claim against an individual entrepreneur for the recovery of debt under a contract for the sale of goods concluded between them.
The plaintiff believed that the transaction was a sale and purchase agreement, in which the due date was determined. After the expiration of this period, the goods transferred to the respondent were subject to payment at the price agreed upon by the parties, even if the goods were not yet realized. The contractual condition that the goods are payable as they are sold, but no later than a certain period, according to the claimant, served as a justification for the delay in payment that was provided to the buyer.
The defendant objected to the stated requirements, believing that the concluded deal meets the characteristics of the commission agreement, and not the purchase agreement, and therefore, according to clause 1 of Article 990 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the respondent’s obligation to pay for the goods accepted for sale does not arise until its actual implementation. Since the defendant provided evidence that the goods were only partially sold and could be returned to the claimant for the remainder, he considered the claimant’s claims not to be satisfied.
Solve the merits of the case.
The plaintiff believed that the transaction was a sale and purchase agreement, in which the due date was determined. After the expiration of this period, the goods transferred to the respondent were subject to payment at the price agreed upon by the parties, even if the goods were not yet realized. The contractual condition that the goods are payable as they are sold, but no later than a certain period, according to the claimant, served as a justification for the delay in payment that was provided to the buyer.
The defendant objected to the stated requirements, believing that the concluded deal meets the characteristics of the commission agreement, and not the purchase agreement, and therefore, according to clause 1 of Article 990 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the respondent’s obligation to pay for the goods accepted for sale does not arise until its actual implementation. Since the defendant provided evidence that the goods were only partially sold and could be returned to the claimant for the remainder, he considered the claimant’s claims not to be satisfied.
Solve the merits of the case.
Additional Information
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.
No Reviews Yet
Be the first to leave a review for this product!
Related Products
Solution of the K3 Option 10 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution K5 B1 termehu of Reshebnik Yablonsky AA 1978
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the D1 Option 10 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the K4 version 05 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the K3 Option 11 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of task 4.3.14 from the collection of Kepe OE
Seller: Михаил_Перович
Solution of task 4.2.13 from the collection of Kepe OE
Seller: Михаил_Перович
C2 Option 11 termehu of Reshebnik Yablonsky AA 1978
Seller: TerMaster