Dmitry Uryakin analysed for Pravo.ru the courts’ positions on unilateral refusal of a transaction by marketplaces

The Supreme Court considered a case in which a consumer challenged a cancellation of his order by the marketplace Ozon (Internet Solutions Ltd.) due to the lack of the required goods. Ozon’s terms and conditions of sale allowed for unilateral cancellation of the transaction and a refund to the buyer, but the plaintiff did not agree with them. The courts of three instances recognised the offer as invalid, but did not oblige the online platform to deliver the goods to the customer. The Supreme Court did not agree with this position and pointed out that the return of money for the goods is not a reason to refuse the obligation.

Dmitry Uryakin, Senior Associate, Head of General Business Law Practice at Maxima Legal, told Pravo.ru that there are now two opposing positions. On the one hand, if the seller has returned the money to the buyer, it is not required to transfer the goods to him as well. This approach was applied by the 7th Cassation Court of Justice in case No. 88-9911/2022. On the other hand, courts take the position of the Supreme Court and do not recognise the return of funds to the consumer as a legal way to refuse to perform a public contract (Case No. 88-8141/2023).

To read the full article (in Russian), please, see Pravo.ru website >>>>