Review of Court Practice in Cases on Protection of Consumer Rights in Russia 2023

скачать книгу бесплатно

Resolving the dispute, the court of first instance concluded that there were grounds to satisfy the claim, indicating that all the necessary essential conditions were agreed upon by the parties in the agreement dated May 21, 2021, therefore, it was concluded on the terms defined therein and is subject to execution.

The appeal ruling overturned the decision of the first instance court, and a new decision was made in the case to dismiss the claim.

According to the court of appeal, between the parties, on October 13, 2021, another agreement for the purchase and sale of a car was concluded, which was executed, while S. was not deprived of the right to refuse its conclusion, insisting that the defendant fulfill his obligations under the agreement dated May 21, 2021.

The Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction left the appeal ruling unchanged.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation and sent the case for a new appeal hearing on the following grounds.

Based on the provisions of Article 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in the case where for at least one of the parties the obligation is not related to entrepreneurial activity, a unilateral change of the obligation by a person carrying out entrepreneurial activity is possible only by virtue of the law.

Based on paragraph 4 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, except in cases where the content of the relevant condition is prescribed by law or other legal acts (Article 422). In cases where the condition of the contract is provided for by a norm that is applied to the extent that the agreement of the parties does not establish otherwise (dispositive norm), the parties may, by their agreement, exclude its application or establish a condition different from that provided for in it. In the absence of such an agreement, the terms of the contract are determined by a dispositive norm.

According to paragraph 2 of Article 424 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a change in price after the conclusion of an agreement is permitted in cases and on the conditions provided for by the agreement, the law or in the manner prescribed by law.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 485 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the buyer is obliged to pay for the goods at the price stipulated by the purchase and sale agreement, or, if it is not provided for by the contract and cannot be determined based on its terms, at the price determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 424 of this Code, as well as perform, at your own expense, actions that, in accordance with the law, other legal acts, agreements or usually required requirements, are necessary to make the payment.

If the purchase and sale agreement stipulates that the price of the goods is subject to change depending on the indicators determining the price of the goods (cost, expenses, etc.), but the method for revising the price is not determined, the price is determined based on the ratio of these indicators at the time of conclusion contract and at the time of transfer of goods (clause 3 of Article 485 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Thus, from the content of the above rules of law in their interrelation it follows that, as a general rule, revision of the price of a product depending on changes in the cost of its constituent components is permitted in cases where the purchase and sale agreement provides for such a possibility.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, unacceptable terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer are terms that violate the rules established by international treaties of the Russian Federation, this law, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them, regulating relations in the field of consumer rights protection. Inadmissible terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer are void.

If the inclusion of conditions in the contract that infringe the rights of the consumer resulted in losses to the consumer, they are subject to compensation by the seller (manufacturer, performer, importer, owner of the aggregator) in full in accordance with Article 13 of the same law.

Paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights establishes a list of unacceptable terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer, which, in particular, include: conditions granting the seller (manufacturer, performer, authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer, owner of the aggregator) the right to unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation or a unilateral change in the terms of the obligation (subject, price, term and other conditions agreed with the consumer), except for cases where the law or other regulatory legal act of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of granting such a right by the contract (subparagraph 1).

The court of first instance found that the delivery of the car under the terms of the contract dated May 21, 2021 was not carried out; the defendant unilaterally refused to fulfill obligations through inaction, which caused losses to the plaintiff.

In canceling the court decision and refusing to satisfy the claim, the appellate court did not express any judgment about whether the contract dated May 21, 2021 was valid, whether it was executed by the seller, whether the rights of the plaintiff as a consumer were violated, given that, under the terms of the said agreement, the price of the car was not subject to change with an increase in the rates of tax, customs and other payments, the cost of transport and/or other expenses, as well as an increase in the maximum retail price of the car.

In support of the claims, S. indicated that on October 13, 2021, after the delivery of the car under the terms of the original contract was not carried out, he was forced to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with the seller for the car with an increased price.

These arguments of the plaintiff were not assessed by the court, in violation of the requirements of Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation <6>, and there are no judgments on them in the judicial act.

– — – — – — – — – — – — – — – —

<6> Hereinafter – the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Under such circumstances, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court recognized as erroneous the conclusions of the courts of appeal and cassation regarding the imposition on the buyer of the consequences of an increase in the cost of the goods.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court dated May 30, 2023 N 75-KG23-3-K3.

6. The buyer has the right to present a claim to the seller regarding defects in goods for which no warranty or expiration dates have been established, if these defects are discovered within two years from the date of transfer of the goods to him and longer periods are not established by law or contract

D. and S. filed a lawsuit against the company (seller) for the protection of consumer rights, indicating that during the operation of the apartment that they purchased from the defendant under the purchase and sale agreement dated June 6, 2016, shortcomings in the construction work were identified. installation and finishing works.

In resolving the dispute and partially satisfying the claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that during the five-year warranty period established by the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, defects were revealed in the apartment transferred to the plaintiffs, which were formed as a result of violations committed during construction work, then there arose before the transfer of the apartment to consumers.

Taking into account the foregoing, the court came to the conclusion to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiffs in equal shares the cost of eliminating the defects, determined by a forensic examination, as well as compensation for moral damages and a fine for failure to voluntarily meet consumer requirements.

The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court, additionally pointing out that the choice of the person obligated at the consumer’s request in this case belongs to the consumer, and therefore recognized the complaint’s argument that the five-year warranty period applicable to construction work was not based on the law. should be used in relation to the apartment developer.

The Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction left the court rulings in the case unchanged.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court recognized the decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation as made in significant violation of the rules of law, canceled them and sent the case for a new appeal hearing.

According to paragraph 1 of Article 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the defects of the goods were not specified by the seller, the buyer to whom the goods of inadequate quality were transferred has the right, at his choice, to demand from the seller, among other things, reimbursement of his expenses for eliminating the defects of the goods.

If a warranty period or expiration date is not established for the goods, claims related to defects in the goods may be presented by the buyer, provided that the defects in the sold goods were discovered within a reasonable time, but within two years from the date of transfer of the goods to the buyer or within a longer period the period when such a period is established by law or the purchase and sale agreement (clause 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

A similar rule is provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

The court of first instance, assessing the nature of the controversial legal relations that arose between the parties, did not take into account the fact that legal relations had arisen between the parties arising from the real estate purchase and sale agreement dated June 6, 2016, in which the company (defendant) acts as the seller, and D. and S. – buyers. The developer of the building where the plaintiffs’ apartment is located is not the defendant, but another legal entity.

The relationship between the seller and the buyer is regulated by Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Chapter 2 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

Meanwhile, the court erroneously, when considering the dispute, was guided by paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, which is subject to application when protecting consumer rights when performing work (providing services), and came to the erroneous conclusion that claims related to defects in real estate, may be brought against the seller of real estate, who is not the developer, within five years after the conclusion of the purchase and sale agreement.

If the purchase and sale agreement for an apartment does not establish a warranty period for the apartment, and the law does not stipulate special periods during which the buyer could make a claim regarding the quality of the acquired real estate, then by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph two of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on the protection of consumer rights, the period for submitting claims to the seller regarding defects in the apartment is two years from the date of its transfer to the buyers.

The courts have established that, under the purchase and sale agreement, the plaintiffs were given residential premises corresponding to the terms of the agreement dated June 6, 2016, the apartment was inspected by the buyers, the agreement has the force of an acceptance certificate, signed by the parties without claims to the property in the form in which it was at the time of certification of the contract.

According to the conclusion of the judicial construction and technical examination, the identified defects are obvious and could have been discovered by the plaintiffs when the apartment was transferred to them, but for two years the buyers did not contact the seller with any claims, which was not taken into account by the courts.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court dated August 30, 2022 N 51-KG22-6-K8.

7. The presence of a defect in a technically complex product that reappears during the warranty period after measures have been taken to eliminate it is an independent basis for satisfying the requirement to replace a low-quality product. At the same time, the possibility of eliminating such a defect, the proportionality of costs and the insignificance of time spent on eliminating it, as well as the absence of a ban on the use of goods with this defect, have no legal significance

T. filed a lawsuit against the company (seller) for the protection of consumer rights, indicating that a car purchase and sale agreement had been concluded between the parties. The car has a warranty period, during the period of which the buyer repeatedly contacted the official dealer to eliminate various deficiencies, including those related to the violation of the integrity of the driver’s seat trim, which appeared again. The claim to replace the car with a similar one was left unsatisfied by the defendant.

Refusing to satisfy the claims for replacement of goods and compensation for damages, as well as for the collection of a penalty, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that although the declared defect in the form of a violation of the integrity of the covering of the driver’s seat trim does exist and appeared again after its elimination, however, this defect is not irreparable and does not impair the use of the vehicle.

The court also indicated that during the consideration of the case, it was not established that it was impossible to use a technically complex product during each year of the warranty period in total for more than thirty days due to the repeated elimination of its various shortcomings.