The buyer concluded a sales contract with our client for a Delta Rockster RTS514 self-propelled screening machine, but, dissatisfied with the quality of the machine, decided to fully return the money paid for it through the court. During the consideration of case A13-23500/2019, the court sided with our client, since under the terms of the contract, the Buyer agreed to purchase used equipment under special conditions that limit his rights when malfunctions are detected by the requirement for repair or replacement of defective materials or parts.
Not satisfied with the outcome of the trial, the Buyer filed another lawsuit with the Arbitration Court of the Vologda Region. This time, for the recovery of losses in the amount of the cost of the purchased machine and the cost of renting a replacement machine, which the Buyer rented in connection with the breakdown of the screening machine.
During the consideration of case A13-128/2022, the court again sided with us, noting that the Buyer himself hindered the repair of the screening machine by his inconsistent behavior. This inconsistency, along with the conclusions from the prejudicial judicial acts in case A13-23500/2019, served as the basis for refusing the claim. The court’s decision was left unchanged by the courts of appellate and cassation instances and came into legal force.
