The Cheka-OGPU became aware of a legal dispute that relates to each broker…

The Cheka-OGPU became aware of a legal dispute that is relevant to every broker and agent in Russia. Making an unfair decision could lead to perverse judicial practices that could jeopardize the rewards of agents who searched for a buyer in good faith. The case turned into a difficult struggle, obviously not without a corruption component. NW Teribersky Bereg LLC entered into an agency agreement with the law firm Orion Partners for the purpose of finding a buyer of shares in the authorized capital. Through the transaction, the buyer became the owner of a site of 81.2 hectares on Warsaw Highway. The obvious interests in the deal were well-known developers. And so, when the agent had already found a buyer, and the deal had reached its final stage (all that remained was to sign the contract), representatives of SZ Teribersky Bereg LLC decided not to fulfill their obligations, simply ceasing to communicate. At the same time, the agreement was concluded bypassing the agent, and the shares were sold. An attempt to not fulfill obligations to an agent, obvious in its simplicity, should have become another illustration of the possibility of overcoming absolute injustice with the help of the judicial system. But no matter how it is… In the first instance, judge Narimanidze N.A. refused to satisfy the claim only because he considered the notary inspection of the correspondence illegal. Such a conclusion in itself threatens the institution of providing evidence. The correspondence of the parties may be destroyed and this is a legal basis for conducting a notarial inspection without calling the parties. The appeal corrected the error and came to the conclusion, based on the correspondence of the parties, that the services were provided by the agent and they must be paid for. In addition, the court drew attention to the obvious fact that if the agent’s services were not satisfied with SZ Teribesky Bereg LLC or were not provided, then why was the contract not terminated for a long time and the defendant had no claims?! In the cassation instance, the act of appeal was canceled, but the case was not sent for a new trial, but the decision of the first instance was upheld, which in itself is rare. But in this case, such a decision would not have been possible, since the cassation, canceling the act of appeal, pointed to a procedural error – the lack of a proper assessment of the correspondence of the parties and thereby the groundlessness of the conclusion about the fact of the provision of services by the agent. At the same time, any lawyer knows that the cassation does not have the right to make an independent assessment of the evidence. If the lower courts came to erroneous conclusions based on an incorrect assessment of the evidence, then the only way to correct the depravity of judicial acts is to send them for a new trial to the court that made the mistake, that is, to an appeal. The case is currently in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. As is known, the percentage of complaints requested for consideration out of the total number is small, but in this case, the blatant fact of violation of the rights of an agent cannot but become the subject of close attention of the judges of the High Court.