The court recalled that for the refusal to perform the contract, the state customer is not obliged to forward the decision by mail

22 March 2018, Thursday

The customer placed a decision on termination of the contract in the EIS and delivered this decision to the deputy director of the counterparty on purpose. The territorial agency FAS considered that the actions of the customer did not meet the requirements of Law No. 44-FZ, and refused to include the performer in the RNP.

The court with the supervisory authority disagreed, having considered such a notification appropriate. From the interpretation of the provisions of Law No. 44-FZ, it follows that the decision to unilaterally renounce the contract must be placed in the EIS and sent to the counterparty in the most expeditious way. In this case, the method of communication or delivery can be any.

Non-fulfillment by the customer of all actions stipulated by Law No. 44-FZ does not indicate that there is no proper notification if it is proved that the executor has been delivered a decision on unilateral refusal. A similar opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court.

Unlike courts, many supervisory bodies understand the requirements for sending a solution literally. In order not to waste time on legal proceedings, it is better to send this document and registered mail with a notice, and one of the additional ways.

Document:

Decree of the AU of the North-Western District of 20.02.2018 on the case N A56-23404 / 2017

SUBSCRIBE FOR NEWS
All content on this site is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International