Review of a claim for debt collection in connection with non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction
Attention!
The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation. For more information, please contact lawyer Kenesbek Islam by phone.; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.
To the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court of Almaty
To Judge M.T. Yerzakov.
050008, Almaty, Baizakova str., 273 B 8 (727) 333-10-70 020203@sud.kz
from the Defendant: : Individual entrepreneur "__________"
represented by the FULL name of the IIN: __________ Location: Almaty, _________ street.
Proxy representative: Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
IIN: 850722301036. Almaty, Medeu district,050002, Zhibek Zholy ave.,
50, office 202, business center Block. info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+ 7 (708) 578 57 58.
Review of the statement of claim
on debt collection in connection with non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction
There is a civil case in your proceedings for debt collection in connection with non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction at the claim of the LLP "_________", ( next is the Plaintiff) to the sole proprietor's respondent "_________" represented by the full name (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) on the recovery of the amount owed in connection with the non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction. According to which the Plaintiff motivates his claims that on August 16, 2018, between the LLP "___________", next, the "plaintiff" and the sole proprietor "________" further, the "defendant" concluded the transaction, in accordance with the invoice and payment By an order dated August 16, 2018 for the development of the website in the amount of 225,000 (two hundred and twenty-five thousand) tenge, in accordance with the correspondence by e-mail and Watsapp, the defendant undertook to produce the website within thirty days from the date of design approval. However, in the future, the defendant began to delay, first with the development of the design, which was practically made by us and approved only on November 15, 2018. In accordance with the contract that was provided to us, the defendant assumed obligations to fulfill his obligations in full within 30 days from the moment of signing the design of the pages. However, the work had not been completed before the lawsuit was filed.
In accordance with our business correspondence conducted via Whatsapp and E-mail. 152 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which are valid if it is possible to determine the subjects and their expression of will from the content. All screenshots and copies show that the correspondence was conducted with the head of IP Vostrikov, Ivan Vostrikov. Instead of fulfilling his obligations, the "defendant" was simply looking for reasons to delay the work for unknown reasons. We do not agree with the above arguments of the Plaintiff, since according to Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Form of transaction" provides for 1. Transactions are made orally or in writing (simple or notarized). and the fact that a Transaction for which the legislation or agreement of the parties does not establish a written (simple or notarized) or other specific form can be completed orally, in particular, all transactions executed at the very time of their commission. Such a transaction is considered completed even if the person's will to make the transaction is evident from his behavior. A transaction confirmed by the issuance of a token, ticket, or other commonly accepted confirmation mark is deemed to have been concluded orally, unless otherwise established by law. Silence is recognized as an expression of the will to make a deal in cases stipulated by law or by agreement of the parties. Transactions in fulfillment of a written contract may be made orally by agreement of the parties, if this does not contradict the legislation. In accordance with the specified article between the LLP "____________" and sole proprietors "__________" A civil law agreement was concluded where the Defendant undertook to develop a website for the company and the Plaintiff undertook to pay for and accept the Defendant's work. Subsequently, on August 17, 2018, a payment was received to our account of the Defendant, and subsequently, the Defendant began work on the development of the Website.
Review of a claim for debt collection in connection with non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction
On August 23, 2018, on the 4th business day, the Respondent sent the layout of the main page of the website. However, on August 24 of this year, the Defendant received comments from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not like the layout at all and needed to completely redo it. Accordingly, the Defendant developed a new website layout and on August 28th they re-sent the Plaintiff a new layout of the main page. (Layout No. 2). On the same day, the Defendant repeatedly received similar edits from the Plaintiff stating that the layout was not completely satisfactory, and subsequently, after negotiations, on August 29, they received official edits from the Plaintiff by mail. Based on the edits made by the Respondent on September 6, the new layout of the main page was re-developed taking into account the edits. (Mock-up No. 3) and re-sent to the Plaintiff. On the same day, we received comments and additionally the Plaintiff asked for changes and additions. On September 10, the Defendant sent an updated layout. (Layout No. 4). On the same day, we received comments where the plaintiff no longer liked his own edits, but however, the Defendant went to the meeting and re-developed a new website layout taking into account the Plaintiff's edits, and on September 12 they sent an updated layout (Layout No. 5). On the same day, comments were received from the Plaintiff, where the plaintiff requested to redo, and on September 13, an updated layout was sent (Layout No. 6). On the same day, we received comments where the plaintiff also did not like it. On September 15, they sent an updated layout (Layout No. 7). And finally, on September 18, the Defendant received the approval of the main page. On September 18, the Defendant sent 2 versions of the “Catalog” layout and on September 19 they received comments that the catalog was not at all satisfied. On September 26, we sent an updated catalog with individually drawn icons.
On the same day, we received comments on the style and started drawing new icons. On October 5, we received additional comments on the icons and the full list of services. On October 9, we sent the corrected layout to the Plaintiff by email. On the same day, we received comments about making changes and additions, where the changes were made by the Defendant on October 11 and were re-sent. And this time I didn't like the Layout at all, although initially it seemed to sympathize with the Plaintiff. Subsequently, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to sort it out and provide us with an accurate answer. After that, the Plaintiff did not get in touch and the Defendant on October 17 disturbed the Plaintiff in order to receive a specific answer. On the same day, the Plaintiff agreed on the layout of the catalog. Subsequently, the work continued and on October 19, the Defendant sent two more layouts of the internal pages. After that, we requested information for the following pages. On October 23, the plaintiff replied to us and gave us information on the structure of the site. On October 25, we sent two more layouts (according to which the site structure was given). On October 26, the Plaintiff gave extensive comments on the layouts of the website on which the Defendant carried out a number of work, and on October 29, the Defendant sent the layouts by mail. On the same day, the Plaintiff received comments on the site, and we re-requested information on the remaining pages. On October 30, the Defendant sent 2 mockups of updated pages, namely (a product card with calculators) and on October 31, another page was sent. (Contacts), on November 1, they sent the layouts to the post office for approval, and re-requested information on the remaining pages. On the same day, we received comments on which the Plaintiff requested changes and the Defendant sent the corrected layouts on November 5. On November 6, we received repeated comments on the site about the need to make changes. On November 8, corrected layouts were sent to the Plaintiff, which received comments on corrections on the same day. After November 9, corrected layouts were sent. On November 10, we received comments. On November 12, the corrected layouts were sent. On November 14, we received comments and approved layouts. On the same day, we received a structure based on the “Product Card” page without a calculator.
Review of a claim for debt collection in connection with non-fulfillment of obligations under the transaction
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
