The court explained in which cases the performance of work by another contractor relieves the original of responsibility.
The courts explained that if the inability to fulfill obligations arose due to the actions of the customer, and the work was then performed by another contractor, the original contractor is not responsible.
This conclusion is based on the actions of the customer: after the transfer of incomplete source data to the contractor — without an approved design solution, information about foundations and loads — the customer, instead of correcting the shortcomings, concluded a contract for similar work with another contractor.
The court noted that the contractor had shown good faith by promptly informing the customer of any obstacles to the performance of the work, referring to Article 716 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the customer has not eliminated the identified deficiencies and has not created conditions for the execution of the contract.
In these circumstances, the court declared the customer's unilateral refusal to execute the contract invalid and confirmed that the contract was terminated due to the objective impossibility of its execution for reasons beyond the contractor's control.
The Court of First Instance was supported by the Courts of Appeal and Cassation.The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to transfer the case for review.