Courts: what losses a participant can recover from a state customer for illegal refusal to conclude a contract
Courts: what losses a participant can recover from a state customer for illegal refusal to conclude a contract
The customer refused to enter into a contract with the winner because he presented an inappropriate bank guarantee. He formalized his decision in a protocol.
However, the court in another case found this protocol illegal.
Due to the breakdown of the contract, the winner suffered losses and went to court.
The court of first instance collected unjust enrichment (the cost of securing the application), interest for the use of other people's funds, as well as the cost of paying the state duty. However, he refused to claim the following losses:
cost of services for searching for an auction and preparing an application, interest paid to the bank on a loan to secure the application. These costs did not arise through the fault of the customer, they are not related to the performance of obligations under the contract;
the cost of bank services for the provision of a guarantee that was not accepted by the customer. The latter's guilt has not been proven.
The Court of Appeal partially changed the decision of the first instance court and additionally charged the cost of services for finding an auction and preparing an application. He considered that the evidence presented confirmed the damage to the winner.
The cassation agreed with this. Loan interest is not a loss. It does not follow from the documents that these payments were made for the sake of participating in the auction.
The cost of the bank's services for the provision of a guarantee that was not accepted by the customer cannot be collected either. It is unclear which contract provided for the obligations.
The Supreme Court did not review the case.
Document: Determination of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of 08/17/2020 N 305-ES20-10393