Our victories

The state transport company bought a bus from our client under the leasing contract. However, the bus operation did not last long. Before the warranty period expired, the bus burned down right on the route.

The Investigative Committee, jointly with the experts from the EMERCOM of Russia, carried out an investigation into a fire. The cause of the fire was the destruction of a fuel filter.

The insurance company refused to cover damages. So the buyer of the bus applied to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a claim to recover the cost of the bus and losses from our client. How can the dispute be resolved in this situation? Is it possible to protect the seller against the recovery of 2 mln rubles specified in the claims?

A client, being a dealer of the manufacturer of specialized equipment, sold a universal bulldozer on an installment plan. The buyer was a mining company operating on an industrial scale.

The parties encountered difficulties in fulfilling the sales contract. The buyer had made only two payments out of seven. Finally, all of the payment deadlines were missed and the debt exceeded RUB 5 mln. How can the parties resolve the conflict with the least losses and what outcome is possible for this case?

Rostransnadzor (the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Transport) stopped a tractor trailer on the road, as its overall dimensions raised concerns for the inspection. The vehicle had been leased by our client to the driver under a lease agreement. However, the driver decided not to inform about this relationship. Instead, he said that he was acting on behalf of the owner of the heavy duty vehicle.

As a result, Rostransnadzor issued a ruling on an administrative offense and a fine of RUB 400,000.

Our client only found out about the sanctions imposed after the money had disappeared from his account. Meanwhile, the deadline for appealing against the ruling had expired. Let’s have a closer look at how the owner of the vehicle could appeal against the decision and whether such an outcome of the case is possible.

The buyer purchased a large complex consisting of movable and immovable property on an installment plan. However, he failed to pay the seller in full on time. The final payment was two years late.

Moreover, after the final payment the buyer was surprised to have his payment back from the seller (who claimed it had been allegedly missent to him).

As it turned out, the former owner was no longer interested in the settlement of accounts, he was interested in the return of the property more than in receiving the payment.

After the termination of a long-term office lease, the contracting parties were in dispute over the correctness of the settlement procedure and the amount of payment for the property.

The value of the dispute was over RUB 1,000,000.

Can you recharge damages to a supplier if you had to compensate a buyer for repair costs because of the poor quality of the goods?

What should you do if you had to incur legal costs in a court dispute with your buyer? How do you reimburse these costs from the supplier?

The case on recovering damages from FCA RUS gives answers to these questions. Senior associate Ksenia Shcheglova comments.