Cases from practice

An individual entrepreneur bought a minibus in “excellent condition,” according to the sale advertisement. But after the purchase, the bus has stopped, never reaching the new owner’s house. The entrepreneur contacted the service station, and it turned out that before the sale, some systems and parts provided for in its design by the manufacturer had been removed from the minibus.

At trial, the attorney referred to the buyer’s right to reduce the purchase price in the event of a sale of incomplete goods, and proved that the manufacturer actually equipped the bus with those parts and mechanisms, and that these parts and mechanisms were removed before the sale. Also, at the court hearing, we have successfully challenged the arguments of the defendant-seller of the bus about the alleged lack of the right to reduce the price, since the bus was sold used, and therefore implied the presence of defects.

My client, the company from the Republic of Belarus (supplier), supplied fertilizers to a buyer in Russia. The buyer LLC did not pay indirect taxes (VAT) to the Russian budget, and therefore, according to the laws of the EAEU, my client was forced to pay VAT. Excessive payment of VAT is a loss.

The attorney accompanied the client at all stages of judicial debt collection: consultation, filing a claim, drawing up a claim, defending interests in court. At the court hearing he challenged the defendant’s arguments.

A company from Russia (my client) won a lawsuit against a Belarusian OJSC, because the defendant did not complete the work to put the machine into operation. One of the wordings of the decision of the Russian Arbitration Court was “to collect a penalty for the cost of work performed before the date of completion of the work.” Those. a specific amount is not determined, but only a calculation formula, which is unusual for the judicial system of Belarus. The JSC decided to liquidate before paying out the money. The debtor’s liquidator refused to include the penalty in the register of creditors’ claims.

Filed a claim in the economic court to force the liquidator to include a debt in the register in the amount of 15,000,000 Russian rubles;

Provided legal support to the negotiation process between the management of an LLC claiming to receive a penalty and the liquidator of the debtor.

The travel agent entered into the agreement with clients for the provision of travel services, but could not send tourists on a trip due to the cancellation by Flydubai flight program to Belarus. The travel agent returned the money to the tourist. However, the tourist filed a lawsuit for consumer protection and demanded a penalty and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

We proved in court that the travel agent (my client) did not violate consumer rights. It was not possible to send tourists on a trip due to the cancellation of Flydubai flights, which means that the obligation of a travel agent to send tourists on a trip has ceased on the grounds of “impossibility of performance”. And since there is no obligation, then it is illegal to apply the sanctions established by the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, because it is impossible to punish someone for non-fulfillment of a non-existent obligation.

The client, an individual entrepreneur, rented two cars from an individual and used them in a taxi. After the end of the lease, the owner of the cars revealed breakdowns, defects and malfunctions in them, in which he blamed the lessee – an individual entrepreneur. The owner of the cars went to court and tried to recover the cost of repairs from the client.

The attorney attended every court session. It was proved that malfunctions and breakdowns of cars could occur after they were handed over to the owner and that the client was not to blame for their occurrence. Emphasis was placed on the lack of evidence of the return of the car with damage. Indicated on the incompleteness of the testimonies of witnesses. The attorney also provided an appraiser’s certificate, which refuted the methodology for determining the amount of damage applied by the plaintiff.

Social Security Fund presented a demand to an individual entrepreneur to pay a large amount of debt on contributions. The entrepreneur worked under an employment contract during the period for which the Social Security Fund accrued contributions, so he does not have to pay contributions. However, the employer did not provide reporting (PU) to the fund that the entrepreneur also worked under an employment contract. Therefore, the Fund had no reason to write off the debt.

To write off the debt on contributions, the attorney has prepared a statement of claim to the employer to establish the fact of labor relations. He advised the entrepreneur on how to behave in court and prove his case, what arguments and arguments to achieve a positive decision.