Data
- Date:
- 16-10-2020
- Country:
- Russian Federation
- Number:
- A29-8097/2020
- Court:
- Arbitrazh Court of Komi Republic
- Parties:
- Novotrans v Lukoil Komi
Keywords
LONG-TERM CONTRACT - LEASE CONTRACT – BETWEEN TWO RUSSIAN COMPANIES - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO INTERPRET DOMESTIC APPLICABLE LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)
DAMAGES - COMPENSATION SHOULD PUT THE OTHER PARTY IN THE SAME POSITION IN WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF IT HAD NOT CONCLUDED THE CONTRACT - REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES (ART. 3.2.16)
Abstract
Claimant sought a claim for unjust enrichment from Respondent, arguing that the latter failed to use one of three buses subject to a lease contract. In the opinion of the Claimant, the unused bus resulted in uncompensated costs and lost profit.
The respondent argued that under the contract the service volumes were indicative and payment was due only for services actually ordered and rendered, so no unjust enrichment arose.
The court rejected the claim. It found that the contractual framework provided for variable volumes, and Respondent had no obligation to order services of all three buses. The claimant’s losses were treated as ordinary entrepreneurial risk rather than compensable damages.
In its reasoning, the court referred to Article 3.2.16 of the UNIDROIT Principles (2010), which provides that damages should place the aggrieved party in the position it would have been in had the contract not been concluded. Applying this standard, the court held that Claimant had actually benefited from a long-term partnership with Respondent and that the alleged lost profit was not proven.
Abstract in English kindly provided by Roman Zykov
Fulltext
}}
Source
}}