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?
The state transport company bought a bus from our client under the leasing contract. Before the warranty period expired, the bus burned down on the route. An inspection was carried out to investigate into the 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 filed a lawsuit to recover the price of the bus and losses from our client. The task of the lawyers was: to protect the seller against the recovery of RUB 2 mln stated in the claims.
The lawyers did the following:
1. Explored the entire bus maintenance and operation history. In the course of the work, it turned out that it was possible to deprive the claimant of the advantage in the form of the warranty.
2. Proved in court that by the time of the fire, the fuel filter had to be replaced by an authorized service center three times pursuant to the maintenance program. No proof attesting to the fact that the filter was replaced was provided.
3. Established that the claimant had modified the design of the bus by installing a fuel system without the consent of our client or the manufacturer. The sale and purchase contract prohibited such modifications without approval.
As a result, the court agreed that given such maintenance approach there can be no talk of the application of the seller's warranties.
4. The legal status of the claimant as a lessee had to be reviewed; by the time the lawsuit was filed, the buyer of the bus had not discharged its obligations owed to the lessor in full. This meant that the claimant was not a rightful owner and was bound by the will of the leasing company as regards the termination of the bus sale and purchase contract.
The court considered that the claimant had no right to demand termination of the contract and a refund of the money paid for the bus. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed the claimant's claims.
A consumer bought a commercial grade cargo van from a car dealership. When a malfunction occurred in the car, as part of the warranty repair the car owner decided to withdraw from the sales contract. Despite the fact that the car was repaired, the consumer decided to get refund.
The car dealership rejected the buyer's claims since the buyer had no grounds for terminating the contract: the car was repaired and was serviceable.
The car owner disagreed with the dealer's answer and filed a lawsuit with a court at his place of residence. The amount of claims, if satisfied, would have reached about RUB 3 mln rubles, including a penalty and fine under the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights".
Every company is obliged to have a trade name. It is not only an obligatory attribute required for its existence, but also a brand identity, to which the company acquires the exclusive right.
Read this article to find out what a trade name should be like, whether there are any restrictions on its content and whether an company is entitled to protection of its “business name”.