The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not properly verify the defendant’s arguments regarding the incorrectness of the plaintiff’s calculation of inflation losses and 3% per annum after replacing projected volumes with actual ones. In particular, the issue of the legitimacy of accruing these payments on advance payments after signing the service acceptance-transfer acts was not examined. The Supreme Court also noted the need to deviate from previous practice concerning the application of norms on suspensive conditions of service payment.
