At the beginning of 2017, our client performed electrical installation works under a subcontract agreement as part of the construction of the combined auxiliary building of Pervomayskaya CHPP (CHPP-14) in Saint-Petersburg. The work was accepted by the customer PAO TGC-1, the facility was put into operation. At the same time, the general contractor refused to sign the acts of acceptance for the performed works, by mail or otherwise, which did not allow to prove the fact of their transmittal, and as a result, the acts were not transferred to the general contractor.
After some time passed, the general contractor filed for bankruptcy, and the client received a claim in which the general contractor announced an unilateral refusal to perform the contract, stating that the work was not performed. The general contractor demanded to return the advance exceeding 2 million rubles. Our client left the claim unanswered, after which the general contractor sued our client.
The arbitration court of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad region heard case number A56-99733/2017 and on June 09, 2018 ruled to refuse the claims of the general contractor against our client in full. The decision came into force.
The court agreed with our position that in the absence of a signed bilateral act of delivery and acceptance of the performed works, as the general contractor avoided the signing, the performance of works can be confirmed by other proofs, in particular, executive documentation. In addition, the acceptance of the result of the work and its use for its intended purpose by the final customer of construction can serve as a proof of the fact that the work was actually performed.
