The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract of purchase and sale of non-residential buildings and structures due to the buyer’s failure to pay funds within the term established by the contract.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, considering that non-payment of funds is a significant violation of the terms of the contract, which is the basis for its termination. The court of appeal overturned this decision, citing the fact that the contract has already been partially performed (the property has been transferred), therefore, the plaintiff is entitled only to recover the debt, and not to terminate the contract. The Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeal, indicating that since the contract of purchase and sale provided for deferred payment, special rules apply to it, which allow the seller to demand the return of unpaid property or termination of the contract, and the choice of method of protection belongs to the plaintiff. The Court noted that the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the lack of alternative to the claim for payment of the goods does not apply to contracts of purchase and sale on credit with deferred payment.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
