Court: the firm price of the state contract does not prevent the recovery of overpayment based on the results of control measurements
The parties have concluded 3 contracts for major repairs. According to the results of the control measurement, discrepancies were revealed between the actual and paid for by COP-2 and COP-3 volume of work performed. The counterparty did not voluntarily refund the overpayment. The customer appealed to the court.
Three instances saw unjustified enrichment on the contractor's side:
setting a firm contract price does not mean that the result is paid regardless of the amount of work performed and the materials used. A decrease in volumes entails a commensurate reduction in price;
actions of the parties of a private law nature (signing acceptance certificates, agreements, etc.) by themselves cannot offset publicly significant goals.
The contractor's argument that he did not participate in the preparation of the acts of control measurements was rejected. The courts recognized them as relevant and admissible evidence, the reliability of which the contractor did not refute.
Document: Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated 07/19/2024 in case No. A45-9801/2023.
Photo taken from https://ru.freepik.com/popular-photos.