The participant's counterparties violated the deadlines due to the pandemic-the argument helped to challenge the inclusion in the RNP in court
The parties to the state contract determined that the work should be completed in 22 days from the date of its signing. A few weeks later, the customer drew up reports that the work was not started. He notified the participant that he was withdrawing from the contract.
The participant asked to postpone the deadline for completing the work, but he was refused. As a result, the FAS included it in the RNP.
The participant successfully appealed the decision. Two instances supported it:
the
participant tried to fulfill the obligations: requested information about the product, conducted correspondence with contractors and the customer;
the counterparties failed to fulfill their obligations due to a force majeure event – a pandemic.
Given this, as well as the period of performance of obligations, the customer's refusal to extend the terms, replace the goods with a similar one from another manufacturer, the courts agreed that the participant acted in good faith. There were objective reasons for the violation of the deadline.
Document:
Resolution of the 9th AAC of 26.04.2021 in case N A40-185414/2020