Objection to the statement of claim for invalidation of the contract of sale

A successful case

In August 2020, citizen X (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) applied to the Law and Law Company with a request to represent her interests in a civil case regarding the invalidation of the purchase agreement. The essence of the case was that on June 05, 2020, a purchase and sale agreement was concluded between citizen Y (Plaintiff) and citizen X (Defendant) for an apartment located at the address: Almaty, Bostandyk district, Satpayev St. Under this agreement, the cost of the apartment was set at 18,000,000 tenge, however, before signing the agreement, the Plaintiff announced an additional payment of 100,000 tenge for furniture (which the Defendant had previously refused to purchase), respectively, the final amount was set at 18,100,000 tenge. The contract was certified by a notary in Almaty and registered in the registry.

During the conclusion of the Contract, the Plaintiff voluntarily signed a Contract for 18,100,000 tenge with her own hand. For the remaining amount of 100,000 tenge, the Defendant personally, without any pressure from anyone, wrote a receipt in which the latter undertakes to pay the remainder of the amount under the contract, in the amount of 100,000 tenge, within 2 months, to which the Plaintiff fully agreed and confirmed her consent. Accordingly, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in accordance with art. 151, 152, 154 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan by agreement of the parties, a written form of the transaction was completed, which was certified by a notary. However, after a while, the Plaintiff appealed to the court, filing an application for invalidation of this purchase agreement and for the restoration of the record of registration of ownership rights.

Objection to the claim for invalidation of the purchase agreement

The plaintiff requested that the above-mentioned agreement be declared invalid, referring to the provisions of paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of Article 159 of the Civil Code, according to which a transaction made as a result of a significant misconception may be declared invalid by a court at the request of a party acting under the influence of a misconception. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's side did not provide evidence that the contested contract was concluded in violation of the requirements of the law, and the court did not establish that the contract between the parties was concluded in the presence of one of the circumstances provided for by the above-mentioned provisions of the contract.  As follows from the statement of claim and the plaintiff's explanations, the grounds for challenging the contract were that the defendant, according to the plaintiff, had not paid part of the purchase amount for the purchased apartment in the amount of 100,000 tenge; the plaintiff confirms the receipt of the amount in the amount of 18,000,000 tenge. At the same time, the defendant's side presented to the court a payment document from Kaspi Bank JSC dated June 12, 2020, from which it follows that the defendant transferred 100,000 tenge to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's party has not refuted this circumstance, and the fact of receiving the specified amount from the defendant has not been disputed. The Plaintiff's arguments, given in the statement of claim that until the Defendant deposited the remaining amount of the contract in the amount of 100,000 tenge, the notary had to draw up an apartment purchase and sale agreement with deferred payment, are not sound.

Since before signing the Purchase Agreement, the transaction amount was changed by 100,000 tenge at the initiative of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to conclude a Purchase Agreement with an additional payment of the remaining amount of 100,000 tenge within two months. So, on June 12, 2020, the Defendant paid the remaining 100,000 tenge, as evidenced by the receipt of payment and the account statement. The arguments about the illegal reissue, about the defendant's possible criminal conspiracy with a notary, misleading employees of registration authorities, are slander, all arguments of the claim are untenable, since the defendant has fulfilled all the conditions. At the hearing, notary Sultanbekov Ye.T. did not admit the claim, asked to be denied, and explained to the court that the transaction had been certified by him in full compliance with the requirements of the law. The court decided: To refuse to satisfy the claim of citizen Y to citizen X for invalidation of the purchase agreement and restoration of the record of registration of ownership rights. Dear Client, In order to improve the quality of legal services, please follow the link /o-nas-2/otzyvy/ and leave your feedback / recommendations, for which we will be very grateful.

Sincerely, the Law and Law Law Company. 

  

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases