The courts found no fault of the contractor in the delay under the state contract due to the increase in the price of construction materials
The parties entered into a contract for the overhaul of a highway. During its execution, the price of materials rose. The contractor asked to increase the price and term, justified it with documents, but the customer refused due to the lack of limits.
The contractor offered to terminate the deal by agreement and pay for the work performed. The client, on the other hand, charged penalties and later deducted them from the guarantee funds.
The three instances recovered unjust enrichment from the client:
● the contractor was not at fault for the delay. The contract could not be fulfilled on time due to objective reasons, which the customer was informed about;
● they did not prove that the contractor deliberately avoided performing the work. The controllers came to the same conclusion;
● the contractor confirmed that the prices of construction materials had increased. He also approached the client to resolve the problem;
● the customer had grounds for writing off the liquidated damages.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not reconsider the case.