The state customer did not see any obvious shortcomings during acceptance - the courts did not recover unjustified enrichment
The parties signed a contract for the construction of a kindergarten. The result was accepted without comment and the facility was put into operation.
Later, the control and accounting chamber conducted an inspection of the facility and revealed an overpayment of more than 9 million rubles: the customer paid for the work that was not done, performed in a smaller volume or using other materials.
The contractor did not voluntarily return the money. Three instances did not recover them either:
- the forensic examination has established the unreliability of the examination results. The overpayment was about 600 thousand rubles. At the same time, in a number of positions, the contractor has done more than reflected in the acts. The supervisors did not mention this;
- the overestimation of the volume of work was obvious. He could and should have been discovered during a routine check. The customer accepted the result without comment. According to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in this case, he does not have the right to refer to obvious shortcomings.
In practice, there is an example when the courts have collected an overpayment from a contractor in a similar dispute. In their opinion, with the usual method of acceptance, the customer could not establish that the work was performed to a lesser extent than indicated in the certificates.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the Far Eastern District dated 12/20/2023 in the case N A24-3688/2022
Фото https://ru.freepik.com/popular-photos