Civil law, FAS (2 tasks)

Pay with:
i agree with "Terms for Customers"
Sold: 0
Refunds: 0

Uploaded: 10.07.2013
Content: 30710105139280.zip (17,49 kB)

Description

Objective 1
Municipal Unitary Enterprise (MUP) "Vodokanal" appealed to the court against the JSC "Interbank" to invalidate the bank's actions in terms of increasing the tariffs for settlement and cash services and the return of illegally debited from the account of the enterprise 2000 rubles. (Account maintenance fees). The decision of the arbitral tribunal denied the claim. The court found the bank's actions lawful and appropriate n. 1, Art. 450 of the Civil Code, as Sec. 4.4 bank account agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant provides for the right of the bank to unilaterally make changes to the tariffs for services.
In the appeal, the company pointed to the incorrect application of the provisions of the court n. 1, Art. 450 of the Civil Code, which resulted in the bank as economically stronger entity had the opportunity to impose a client (enterprise) unfavorable terms and unreasonably raise tariffs. With reference to the inadmissibility of unilateral change obligations in accordance with Art. 310 of the Civil Code, the company requested the trial court's decision to cancel the claim is satisfied. Resolution of the appellate court reversed the decision, the lawsuit Municipal Unitary Enterprise "Vodokanal" satisfied.
Questions to the problem:
1. In some cases, allowed a unilateral change or termination of the agreement?
2. What are the signs of a public contract and a contract of adhesion. Can we consider the bank account agreement between MUP "Vodokanal" JSC and "Interbank" public or a contract of adhesion?
3. Is it possible the recognition of the disputed terms of the contract of bank account (Sec. 4.4) void with reference to Art. 10 or Art. 428 GKRF?
4. Evaluate the legitimacy of decisions the court of first instance and appeal.

Task 2
"Everest" and JSC "Caucasus" signed a preliminary lease agreement for non-residential premises on 01.06.2006 for a period of two years. Under the contract of assignment by 01.07.2006 JSC "Caucasus" has given way to the right of the lease "Metrostroy." In August 2006, between the "Everest" (Lessor) and JSC "Metrostroy" (lessee) was signed by the main lease. After starting to use the premises it was found out that it is faulty heating equipment, the demands of "Metrostroy" address the shortcomings of "Everest" did not respond.
JSC "Metrostroy" addressed to OJSC "Caucasus" with a claim for recognition of the contract of assignment of 01.08.2006 invalid because it was the subject of the "future" (not yet existing) right to lease, in addition, a preliminary lease agreement has not passed the state registration; a refund of the contract amount. Decision of the court in claims denied. Further, OAO "Metrostroy" filed by OAO "Caucasus" claim for cancellation of the contract of assignment by 01.08.2006, citing the shortcomings of the assigned rights. Court decision in a lawsuit was again denied.
Questions to the problem:
1. What rights can be the subject of assignment (cession)? Is a concession to the "future" of rights, the right to lease?
2. What are the requirements to the form of the preliminary contract? How should issue a controversial contract assignment?
3. Does the original creditor (assignor) of the shortcomings of the assigned rights to the new creditor (assignee)?
4. Evaluate the legitimacy of judicial decisions.

Additional information

9 pages

Feedback

0
No feedback yet.
Period
1 month 3 months 12 months
0 0 0
0 0 0
In order to counter copyright infringement and property rights, we ask you to immediately inform us at support@plati.com the fact of such violations and to provide us with reliable information confirming your copyrights or rights of ownership. Email must contain your contact information (name, phone number, etc.)