Following the results of the purchase, the parties signed a contract. After that, the contractor informed the customer by letter that he had suspended work:
we have identified volumes that are not taken into account in the technical documentation, so we need to increase the cost;
the actual volume of work does not partially coincide with the volumes from the estimate.
Since the customer did not respond to the letter, the contractor sent him a decision on unilateral termination of the contract. They received it on the same day.
A month later, the customer replied that he would not increase the cost, since the contractor in the application for participation in the purchase agreed to perform the work on the terms of the auction documentation.
In response to the contractor's decision to unilaterally refuse, the customer reported that the work under the contract was not completed, and asked to complete them. Later, he demanded to pay a fine for non-fulfillment of the contract and decided to cancel it unilaterally.
Since the contractor did not eliminate the violations, the customer sent the information to the antimonopoly authority for inclusion in the RNP.
The controllers did not include the data in the register:
when checking a unilateral refusal, the antimonopoly authority evaluates only compliance with the procedure for such a refusal, and not its legality;
the contractor's decision to cancel the contract entered into force earlier than the customer's decision. When the latter's decision came into force, the obligations of the parties had already ceased, the contract ceased to be valid;
disagreements between the parties do not indicate unfair behavior of the contractor, as well as the fact that he tried to disrupt the contract. The customer did not prove the opposite.
Document: The
decision of the Tula Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia of 26.07.2021 in the case N 071/06/104-622/2021