The courts did not allow the supplier to be involved twice for the same violation of the state contract
Upon acceptance, the customer identified a non-conformity of the product and asked to replace it by a certain date. He also demanded to pay a fine for improper performance of the contract.
Since the supplier did not pay and did not deliver the necessary goods in a timely manner, the customer refused the contract.
A few days later, the goods were delivered and accepted. Then they signed an act on the fulfillment of obligations and the cancellation of the unilateral refusal. It stated that the supplier must pay penalties for late delivery of the goods and the initial fine for improper performance of the contract. The supplier paid only penalties.
The customer insisted on a fine. The court did not support him:
the purpose of the fine is to re-collect the penalty for late delivery of the goods. You cannot attract a supplier twice for the same breach of contract;
there are no grounds for a fine, since the goods were replaced, albeit with delay, and the penalty was paid.
The appeal took the side of the customer. The supplier signed the act. This means that he recognized the obligation to pay, including a fine. The customer's requirement is legitimate.
The cassation supported the first instance. The signing of the act means the proper execution of the contract by the supplier, albeit with delay.
The RF Armed Forces did not review the case.
Document: Definition of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of 25.10.2021 N 310-ES21-18841