RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME ECONOMIC COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

of September 15, 2004 No. 0-0407/3326

(extraction)

The sums of money or other property provided in pursuance of the nonexistent obligation if the acquirer proves that person requiring return of property knew about lack of the obligation, are not subject to return in quality superficial enrichments.

The claimant of DP "Execuutive Air" appealed to economic court with the requirement about collection from the defendant of the World fund of development Kurash of outstanding amount in the amount of 6.766.855-56 bags.

Requirements of the claimant are met by resolution of the Trial Court completely.

The decision is left by the resolution of appellate instance without change.

Without having agreed with these court resolutions, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Economic Court with the writ of appeal in which he asks them to cancel and to refuse satisfaction of the claim.

In reasons for the claim it is specified that courts do not find out the circumstances which are important for case and the fact not of modification by the parties of terms of the contract according to which the claimant could have the right to require surcharge is not considered.

Judicial board, having studied case papers, having discussed arguments of the writ of appeal, considers the writ of appeal subject to satisfaction on the following bases.

From case papers it is seen that on July 23, 2003 between the parties the account agreement of N57 regarding implementation of air tickets is concluded. Total amount of the agreement constituted 3355-72 US dollars. According to terms of the contract (item 2. 1) the defendant made 100 percent advance payment in sumach at the Central Bank rate of RUZ on the date of payment that constituted 3.278.755-05 bags.

After receipt of the amount on the settlement account of the claimant on July 25, 2003 according to the power of attorney N14/N of July 24, 2003 two tickets for "economy class", one of which addressed to the defendant's representative and the second addressed to гр, were written out. X. with date of departure on July 28, 2003.

However, at the request of the defendant, in connection with the arisen problem with transit visa along route Tashkent - London - New York-Santo Domingo, the defendant addressed the claimant about replacement of air tickets by other route along which the additional transit visa is not required. The claimant agreed to make replacement and at the same time between the parties the additional agreement according to which the cost of replacement of air tickets and transfer of departure the next day constituted 100 dollars was signed. In agreement performance by the defendant payment was made. However, in this agreement it was not specified about need of additional payment for the replaced air tickets.

In this case the claimant knew that the property (air tickets) is provided in execution of the nonexistent obligation, therefore has no right to require return of property or its cost.

Under such circumstances the judicial board considers that the resolution of the Trial Court and the resolution of appellate instance are accepted with violation of regulations of the substantive right in this connection, are subject to cancellation, and the writ of appeal - to satisfaction.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info