A company engaged in the manufacture of wrapping material for food products placed an order for cutting and laminating film with a legal entity specializing in such work. After receiving the film after cutting and lamination, the company found contamination on it, making it unsuitable for packaging food products. Since the contractor refused to return the advance received for the work, reimburse the cost of the damaged film, and the cost of transportation for its transportation, the customer, with our help, applied to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region.
The contractor did not agree with the claim, since he considered his guilt in the contamination of the film unproven. According to the contractor, it could have gotten dirty both during transportation and during unloading at the customer’s warehouse, which, as the owner, should bear the risk of accidental loss of this property. Rejecting these arguments of the contractor, the court agreed with our position that the nature of the contamination indicates that it arose before the cut film was packed by the contractor and loaded into the vehicle. The claim was fully satisfied.
Rejecting the contractor’s complaint, the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal pointed out that the law in this situation places the burden of proof on the contractor, and since he did not provide evidence of the absence of his guilt in the contamination of the film, there are no grounds for revising the decision to recover the amounts of losses and unworked advance from him. The contractor refrained from further appealing the judicial acts in cassation.
