Cassation: the absence of an application for the goods did not justify the refusal to accept under the state contract
The parties agreed to deliver goods on demand. The customer received it in full and on time, but accepted and paid only a part, since he did not send an application for the entire volume. The supplier sued.
Three instances collected from the customer a debt, a penalty, transportation costs and state duty:
• the supplier informed the customer that he was ready to deliver the goods for the remaining amount, but he did not answer;
• the goods were sent by a transport company, but the customer refused to accept them without explanation. He acted in bad faith and created artificial conditions for a unilateral refusal;
• the customer did not send an application for goods in the amount of 18.6% of the contract price, but the parties did not conclude agreements on reducing the quantity of products. The customer did not explain the reasons for the absence of an application for the disputed part of the goods. Written refusal of acceptance was not sent to the supplier.
Note that in practice there is an opposite approach. Its supporters rely on the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on a similar dispute.
Document: Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated 04.10.2022 in case N A41-28617 / 2021