Zaitsev has agreed with the sale last Yefimov TV. However, the original terms Zaitsev TV is not passed, and therefore the buyer went to court demanding the confiscation Zaitsev TV, damages caused by the refusal to transfer the purchased item and the non-pecuniary damage. Their demands Efimov motivated by the fact that already promised to sell the TV at a higher price of its mother-and now, not being able to do it, lost in the eyes of Tiffany status of a serious and binding rights. Zaitsev objected to satisfaction of the claim, pointing out that, after consulting with his wife, he decided not to sell the TV, the more that money from Yefimov, he has not yet received. As for the claims for damages and moral damages, the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Civil Code does not provide for such consequences. In addition, Efimov, not being the owner of the TV, had no right to sell it, and damaged relations with the mother is a personal matter of Efimov. Disassemble the arguments of the parties and decide the case. Can Efimov make a claim for the recovery of the TV Kovalyova, which he was presented to his wife a birthday Zaitseva?