Circumstances of the case 👇🏼
The company with cautious liability “C” appealed to the commercial court with a claim to PJSC “D” on the termination of contracts for the supply of cars and recovery of damages.
In support of the stated requirements, the plaintiff pointed out that he had purchased a product with a significant defect – a faulty system “Activecurvesystem”, in connection with which it is impossible to use the car for its intended purpose.
The plaintiff believes that a significant violation by the defendant (seller) of the requirements for quality contracts is the basis for their termination and recovery of funds paid for the car, as the failure of the “Activecurvesystem” makes the operation of cars dangerous to car users and life-threatening. health of other road users.
The conclusion of the Supreme Court 👇🏼
In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 678 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (article to which the plaintiff refers in support of its claims) in case of significant violation of the quality of goods (detection of defects that can not be eliminated, deficiencies, the elimination of which is associated with disproportionate costs or time, shortcomings repeatedly or reappeared after their elimination) the buyer has the right (of his choice):
1️⃣withdraw from the contract and demand a refund of the amount paid for the goods;
2️⃣ require replacement of goods.
Clause 10.5 of the contested agreements stipulates that in case of detection of a significant defect in the car, the buyer, at his option, has the right to withdraw from this agreement and demand a refund of the full price paid for the car or require replacement.
The plaintiff (buyer) in the lawsuit, referring to Art. 678 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, requires recovery from the seller of the amount paid for the goods, ie, its return.
The Supreme Court noted that according to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court (decision of 30.01.2019 in case 164/882/15-C) interpretation of paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 678 of the Civil Code of Ukraine shows that in case of significant violation of quality requirements the buyer has the right demand a refund of the amount paid for the goods only if he has withdrawn from the contract.
Having established that the plaintiff did not refuse the contract of sale, the courts of previous instances made the correct conclusion about the lack of legal grounds for recovery of the amount paid for the goods.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the position of the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk region, which stated that the plaintiff did not withdraw from the supply contracts and therefore are not subject to satisfaction due to unfounded claims for reimbursement of the cost of cars.
The CCC also reminded of the conclusion expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision of 09.01.2019 in case № 759/2328/16-ts on the application of legal norms: Article 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine). The nullity of a transaction is constructed by means of “textual” invalidity, because it exists only in the case of a direct indication of the law. From the standpoint of legal technique, such a direct instruction can be embodied, in particular, in terms of “insignificant”, “is invalid”.
And in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 14.11.2018 in the case № 2-383 / 2010 (proceedings № 14-308tss18) it was concluded that Article 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine enshrines the presumption of legality of the transaction. This presumption means that the transaction is considered lawful, ie it gives rise to, changes or terminates civil rights and obligations until this presumption is rebutted, in particular on the basis of a court decision that has entered into force. In case of non-refutation of the presumption of legality of the contract, all the rights acquired by the parties to the transaction under it must be exercised without hindrance, and the obligations arising from the conclusion of the contract shall be performed.