{"id":6481,"date":"2025-03-09T09:07:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-09T07:07:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-504-3085-20-dated-24-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-09T09:07:11","modified_gmt":"2025-03-09T07:07:11","slug":"case-no-504-3085-20-dated-24-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-504-3085-20-dated-24-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 504\/3085\/20 dated 24\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a land plot purchase and sale agreement, which was concluded by the plaintiff&#8217;s representative in her favor.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The mere fact of family ties between the representative and the buyer is not grounds for declaring the contract invalid<br \/>\n&#8211; The representative acted within the scope of the power of attorney granted to her<br \/>\n&#8211; There is no evidence of malicious collusion between the representative and the buyer<br \/>\n&#8211; Non-receipt of funds is not a basis for declaring the contract invalid<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Reject the claim to declare the land plot purchase and sale agreement invalid.<\/p>\n<p>: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice, indicating that family ties in themselves do not evidence malicious collusion.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125605148\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a land plot purchase and sale agreement, which was concluded by the plaintiff&#8217;s representative in her favor. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The mere fact of family ties between the representative and the buyer is not grounds for declaring the contract invalid &#8211;&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}