The breakdown of the server equipment did not justify the delay in signing the state contract
The winner of the purchase did not sign the contract on time. The customer recognized him as evading. The data was included in the RNP.
The winner explained that he did not want to refuse the contract: on
the penultimate day for signing, the power supplies of the server equipment failed. This is confirmed by official memos of authorized persons and photos;
attempts have been made to fix the problem;
the customer was notified by letter about the breakdown, as well as about the winner's readiness to sign the contract at the first opportunity.
The courts were not convinced by such arguments. The winner did not prove a number of circumstances:
the failure of the power supply units of the server equipment disabled the computer with the EP key;
inability to sign a contract before the malfunction;
the very fact of a power supply failure. Photos and memos do not confirm either the actual malfunction, or the fact that the contract could not be signed on time.
The courts also noted that a
legal entity does not stop its activities in the event of a malfunction of communication and server equipment;
the winner did not try to configure another computer to use the EP key or connect to a serviceable power supply;
if the signing of the contract had not been postponed until a later date, the adverse consequences might not have occurred. Delaying the transaction procedure means that the winner did not show the necessary degree of care and prudence;
the late signing of the contract violates the rights of the customer, since he expected to fulfill the contract on the terms identified as the best. This affects the effective spending of the budget;
a letter stating that it is impossible to sign a contract on time does not release the winner from the obligation to conclude it in a timely manner.
Document:
Resolution of the AC of the North Caucasus District of 23.08.2021 in the case N A63-18957/2020