1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the farm to return the barley transferred for storage to the enterprise, as well as compensation for losses and payment of penalties.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of previous instances, pointed out that the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff is not a party to the storage agreement between the previous owner of the grain and the farm, and therefore the requirements for re оформление (re-registration) of the goods under this agreement are not binding on the plaintiff. The courts should have clarified the circumstances of the actual transfer of grain to the plaintiff under the supply agreement and the subsequent transfer for storage to the defendant, and also assess the evidence confirming these circumstances, in particular the supply agreement, the расходная накладная (expense invoice), the acceptance certificate and the storage agreement. Also, the courts did not take into account the contradictory behavior of the third party regarding the issue of the transfer of ownership of the grain to the plaintiff. The Court of Cassation referred to its own previous practice, noting that the decisive factor is whether the plaintiff acquired ownership of the goods that are in storage with the defendant.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of the obligation to return the barley and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and left the decision unchanged in the part of recovery of damages and penalty.
