Can expertise resolve the dispute?
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?
Case was handled by
A client, a dealer of a manufacturer of specialized equipment, sold a universal bulldozer on an installment plan. The buyer had made only two payments out of seven. As a result, the payments became overdue, and the debt exceeded RUB 5 mln. During the operation of the equipment, malfunctions occurred repeatedly, most of which were eliminated under warranty. Tension between the parties was increasing. As a result, the seller filed a lawsuit to recover from the buyer the debt and a penalty of RUB 6 mln, and the buyer filed a counterclaim to terminate the contract and recover more than RUB 2.5 mln that had been paid
The task of the lawyers was: to resolve a dispute associated with the termination of the contract in favor of the client
The litigation was risky for the client. The special equipment was repeatedly repaired under warranty, and there was a high probability that the contract would be terminated. The court was ready to order an expert quality examination for the bulldozer. This increased risks and made the outcome of the case for the dealer completely uncertain. Moreover, the dealer did not know all the nuances of compliance with the equipment operation rules.
The buyer knew how the bulldozer was operated and existence of defects could not be excluded. Difficulties were encountered during an expert evaluation. It was highly probable that defects, other than of manufacturing nature, would be considered as manufacturing ones.
The lawyers did the following:
During several trials, the lawyers raised an issue of conducting expertise in respect of the special equipment. However, the parties, having assessed all risks, entered into negotiations. Eventually, the court approved the settlement agreement.
Pursuant to this agreement, the buyer undertook to repay the debt and pay the penalty for three months and the seller extended the warranty period for a similar period.