Читать книгу Review of Court Practice in Cases on Protection of Consumer Rights in Russia 2023 - - Страница 8

S. filed a lawsuit against the company (seller) for the protection of consumer rights, indicating that on May 21, 2021, a purchase and sale agreement for a car was concluded between the parties at a price of RUB 3,497,000. The contract did not provide for the possibility of revising the price of the car.

S. made an advance payment to the seller’s account; the remaining part of the cost of the car, according to the terms of the contract, was to be paid at the time of transfer of the car to the buyer.

After the car arrived at the warehouse of the seller S., it was reported that the price of the car had increased and amounted to RUB 3,969,000. Since the seller refused to transfer the car at the price of the contract dated May 21, 2021, the plaintiff was forced to sign a sales contract on October 13, 2021 at a new price.

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.