The obligation has no value expression: the courts have again reduced the amount of the fine under the state contract
The parties signed a contract for the repair of a fire truck. According to its terms, photo reports on the completed works should be sent to the customer's e-mail on a weekly basis.
The performer did not do this. The customer, among other things, charged a fine of 10% of the contract price as a violation in value terms. The counterparty did not pay.
Three instances recovered the money partially:
- the customer was not given photo reports — this obligation has no value expression. The fine should have been charged differently;
- the amount of responsibility for the violation of a non-monetary obligation has been overstated. The performer was put in unfavorable conditions;
- the fact that the absence of photo reports led to losses or lost profits of the customer was not proved. The repair was carried out completely without claims to the result.
It should be noted that the courts refer to non-cost violations situations when the counterparty, in particular:
- did not provide the guarantee obligations in time;
- failed to comply with the instruction on the elimination of deficiencies;
- did not hand over the documents or did not notify the customer, for example, about the need to accept the results under the contract, if there are such obligations in it.
Earlier, the Ministry of Finance recommended specifying non-monetary violations in the contract, for which a fine is charged.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District of 06.02.2023 in case N A62-9771/2021