Our client has completed a set of works for the customer to prepare and approve a technological project. After completing the set of works, the client sent the customer acts and certificates in the forms KS-2 and KS-3 for signing. The customer did not sign these documents, did not make objections to the quality of the work, but evaded paying the cost of the work. After receiving the client’s claim, the customer offered to pay, but on the terms of a significant delay, and sent a unilaterally signed payment agreement with a delay. Our client did not respond to this letter.
In the interests of the client, we prepared and filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region to recover the debt from the customer. Objecting to the satisfaction of the claim, the customer referred to the fact that the payment term had not arrived – since the contractor did not directly refuse to sign the agreement on extending the terms, by his silence, according to the customer, he actually agreed to the delay.
Agreeing with our counter-arguments that the current legislation does not establish a rule that silence is a sign of consent, the court granted the claim in full. The decision stated that the legislation does not require a party to the contract to consider on the merits and respond to all proposals from the other party to change the contractual terms. The customer refrained from further appealing the court decision, and it came into legal force.
