Cassation: laptop breakdown does not justify missing the deadline for signing the contract under Law No. 223-FZ
The winner was found to have evaded because he did not sign the contract. He explained that he did not want to evade:
the contract was not concluded due to a laptop breakdown. This is confirmed by a receipt for repairs, a payment order, etc.;
for the purchase of goods under the contract, we received an invoice for payment, i.e. we were preparing for the fulfillment of obligations.
The data was entered into the RNP. Three instances supported this decision:
when submitting an application for participation in the procurement, the winner must be aware of the consequences of his actions, including adverse ones;
laptop breakdown is not force majeure;
the winner's dishonesty consisted in negligent performance of duties at the conclusion of the contract. There was enough time to sign, but they didn't do it on time. All possible measures to rectify the situation were not taken;
the customer notified the winner many times that it was necessary to sign the contract, but he did not respond. He could have signed it in advance instead of waiting for the last day of the deadline;
the fact that the customer was informed about the malfunction and the inability to sign the contract was not confirmed. A letter from a telecom operator about outgoing calls does not prove negotiation. The customer denied that they were conducted;
the purchase of goods on the invoice for payment in this case cannot be considered conscientious behavior.
In practice, there are examples with both similar and opposite positions.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the Central District of 23.08.2022 in case N A23-9107/2021