The lawyers of LexProf defended the customer from a recovery of 3.4 million rubles. The contractor performed work for the customer, the customer signed a work performance act, however, within the warranty period, he discovered the shortcomings of the work performed, which could not be detected at the time of acceptance and refused to pay them. The contractor transferred the right to collect monetary funds to a third party who filed a claim to the customer to collect the cost of the work performed in the amount of 1.6 million rubles and a fine in the amount of 1.8 million rubles.
In the court of the first and appellate instances the claim was partially satisfied in terms of recovering the cost of works performed and completely in a part of collecting penalty. At the same time, the penalty amount exceeded the debt amount by 6 times. The courts did not accept the defendant's argument that he had the right to raise the same objections to the new creditor, as he had to the original creditor, with reference to the absence of a counterclaim. The court of cassation instance reversed all the aforementioned acts and transferred the case to a new trial directing to investigate the circumstances of a poor quality of the work performed.
Later, when considering the case in the court of the first instance, the court found convincing evidence of the defendant that the works of the plaintiff had been performed poorly, and, therefore, should not be paid. By virtue of this, the court denied the claim for a recovery of the payment for poorly performed work. The court also refused to collect penalty due to lack of main debt.