The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

Home / Cases / The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

10 February 2026

The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

On 05/24/2021, M B G LLP (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) and O G LLP (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) entered into a Website and mobile application Development Agreement No. 588 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement).

On 08/19/2022, an Additional Agreement was signed to Agreement No. 588 dated 05/24/2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement).

According to clause 1.1 of the Agreement, "The Customer assigns, and the Contractor undertakes, the development of the website and mobile application in accordance with the terms of reference (Appendix No. 1 to this Agreement), which is an integral part of this Agreement."

In accordance with clause 2.1 of the Agreement, "The cost of work under this Agreement is 5,750,000 (five million seven hundred and fifty thousand) tenge."

In accordance with clauses 2.2-2.7 of the Agreement, "The first installment is 30% of the total cost of work under this agreement: 1,800,000 (one million eight hundred thousand) tenge. It is paid by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the Contract.

The second installment is 40% of the total cost of work under this agreement: 2,225,000 (two million two hundred and twenty-five thousand) tenge. It is submitted by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of the design.

The third installment is 30% of the total cost of the work under this agreement: 1,725,000 (one million seven hundred twenty-five thousand) tenge. It is submitted by the Customer upon completion of the work and the signing of the acceptance certificate for the work performed by the parties."

According to clause 1 of the Agreement, the amendments to clause 2.4 of the Agreement were demolished and set out in the following wording::

"2.4.1. The third installment is 15% of the total cost of work under this agreement, 862,500 (eight hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred) tenge.

2.4.2. The fourth installment is 15% of the total cost of works under this agreement 862,500 (eight hundred sixty two thousand five hundred) tenge. "

According to clause 2 of the Agreement, the amendments to clause 2.7 of the Agreement were demolished and set out in the following wording:

"2.7.1. The third installment is paid by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of the work on the second stage.

2.7.2. The fourth installment is paid by the Customer upon completion of the work and the signing of the acceptance certificate for the work performed by the parties, including the mobile application.

The plaintiff made the payments in the following order::

1. On 05/25/2021, according to payment order No. 805, an amount of 1,800,000 (one million eight hundred thousand) tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

2. On 08/23/2021, according to payment order No. 885, an amount of 2,225,000 (two million two hundred and twenty-five thousand) tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

3. On 09/20/2022, according to payment order No. 885, an amount of 862,500 (eight hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred) tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

4. On 22.12.2022, according to payment order No. 1722, an amount of 862,500 (eight hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred) tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

In accordance with clause 3.1. of the Agreement, "The Contractor undertakes to deliver the finished website and mobile application to the Customer within 120 (one hundred and twenty) business days from the moment the Customer approves the design of all pages of the mobile application and provides data for enabling online payment, and the Customer accepts them and pays."

In accordance with clause 2.6. of the Agreement, "The second installment must be paid by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of the design." The interim acceptance certificate for the design of all pages of the site dated 08/13/2021 was signed by the parties, and the second part of the payment, according to payment order No. 885 dated 08/23/2021, was paid by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the date of delivery of the completed work after 120 (one hundred and twenty) business days was to be developed and delivered to the Customer the website and mobile application by 02/15/2022.

The deadline for the delivery of the website and mobile application is 663 (six hundred and sixty-three) calendar days.

On 1130/2023, a pre-trial claim was sent to the email address with a request to refund the amount paid under the agreement in the amount of 5,750,000 (five million seven hundred and fifty thousand) tenge, as well as to pay a legal penalty in the amount of 1,998,075.78 (one million nine hundred and ninety-eight thousand seventy-five) tenge (seventy-eight) tiyn.

On 11/30/2023, the pre-trial claim was sent to the WhatsApp group to the Defendant's representatives. In response, the Respondent's representative says that the website and the application have been working for a year. However, the Site and the application are not functioning in full mode, i.e. the actual work is not completed.

According to Appendix No. 1 dated 05/24/2021 to the Contract for the development of the website and mobile application No. 588, the development of the website and mobile application consists of the following list of works:

1) Development, coordination and approval of the structure of the website and mobile application (hereinafter referred to as the "MP");

2) Development, coordination and approval of the layout of the main page of the website and the MP;

3) Development, coordination and approval of layouts of internal pages of the website and MP;

4) Layout of the main page and internal pages of the website and MP;

5) Programming:

- peer-to-peer layouts of site pages and MP

- enabling Push notifications;

6) Development of a Website and MP Management System (CMS);

7) Content content of the website and MP (according to clause 3.8. of the Agreement);

8) Website and MP testing;

9) Publishing a mobile application in the App Store and Google Play and uploading the site to hosting;

10) Enabling online payment (Visa, Mastercard);

11) Delivery-acceptance of works.

According to clause 3.8. of the Agreement, "The Contractor undertakes to perform work on the content content of the website and mobile application. The amount of information entered should not exceed 30 (thirty) pages (1800 characters per page without spaces). The additional amount of content is calculated separately."

Complaints about the fulfillment of technical specifications:

1) items 1-6 are fulfilled, with a claim to quality and timing;

2) paragraph 7 - the content was provided only by the Plaintiff's side;

3) point 8 - testing of the website and the MP was carried out repeatedly, constantly revealing technical problems, site layout errors, which caused new problems to appear.;

4) paragraph 10 - at the Defendant's insistence, the PayTech payment system was connected, which soon stopped working, which the Defendant did not notify in any way, then, as part of the Guarantee, Internet acquiring from Bank CenterCredit JSC had to be connected, which was not done.

On 12/14/2023, when logging on to the site, it was revealed that the site was completely unusable, most of the information previously filled in by the Plaintiff was erased.

In accordance with Article 268 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan"), "By virtue of an obligation, one person (the debtor) is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of another person (the creditor), such as paying money and so on, and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor fulfill it. responsibilities. The creditor is obliged to accept execution from the debtor."

By virtue of Article 272 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "An obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements in accordance with business practices or other commonly imposed requirements."

According to paragraph 1 of Article 349 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "Violation of an obligation means its non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment (untimely, in violation of other conditions determined by the content of the obligation) - improper fulfillment. In case of impossibility of proper execution, the debtor is obliged to immediately notify the creditor about this.".

In accordance with clause 2 of Article 365 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, "If, as a result of the debtor's delay, the execution has lost interest for the creditor, he may refuse to accept the execution and claim damages."

According to Article 293 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a penalty (fine, fine) is a monetary amount determined by law or contract that the debtor is obliged to pay to the creditor in case of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations, in particular in case of late fulfillment. Upon request for payment of a penalty, the creditor is not obliged to prove the damage caused to him.

According to paragraph 1 of Article 295, "The creditor has the right to demand payment of a penalty determined by law (legal penalty), regardless of whether the obligation to pay it is provided for by agreement of the parties."

298 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a penalty is collected for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of an obligation if there are conditions for holding the debtor accountable for violating the obligation.

During the preparation and further participation in the process, the Plaintiff incurred expenses for the representative's services in the amount of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) tenge, which is confirmed by the Service Agreement No. TK11-08/2023 dated 12/07/2023, payment order No. 3500 dated 12/11/2023 and a power of attorney.

Based on the above, the court was asked:

1. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the amount under the Agreement in the amount of 5,750,000 (five million seven hundred and fifty thousand) tenge.

2. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP a legal penalty in the amount of 2,043,514.55 (two million forty-three eight thousand five hundred and fourteen) tenge (fifty-five) tiyn.

3. To collect from "M B G" LLP in favor of "O G" LLP the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) tenge.

4. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 233,805.43 (two hundred and thirty-three eight hundred and five) tenge (forty-three) tiyn.

Having disagreed with the Plaintiff's claims, a Response was sent to the claim for recovery of the amount under the contract

Based on the above, the court was asked:

1. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the amount under the Agreement in the amount of 5,750,000 (five million seven hundred and fifty thousand) tenge.

2. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP a legal penalty in the amount of 2,043,514.55 (two million forty-three eight thousand five hundred and fourteen) tenge (fifty-five) tiyn.

3. To collect from "M B G" LLP in favor of "O G" LLP the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) tenge.

4. To collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 233,805.43 (two hundred and thirty-three eight hundred and five) tenge (forty-three) tiyn.

Having disagreed with the Plaintiff's claims, a Response was sent to the claim for recovery of the amount under the contract

Where explanations were given to the court, your production has a civil case No. 7527-24-00-2/848 on the claim of Limited Liability Partnership LLP "O G " (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) to LLP "M B G " (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) for the recovery of the amount under the contract.

Where the plaintiff demands:

1. Collect from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the amount under the Agreement in the amount of 5,750,000 tenge.

2. Collect a legal penalty in the amount of 2,043,514.55 tenge from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP.

3. To collect from "M B G" LLP in favor of "O G" LLP the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 500,000 tenge.

4. To collect from "M B G" LLP in favor of "O G" LLP the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 233,805.43 tenge.

Thus, the parties signed an Agreement for the development of the website and mobile application No. 588 dated May 24, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement)

On 08/19/2022, an Additional Agreement was concluded to Contract No. 588 dated 05/24/2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement), which complies with the terms of Articles 151, 152, and 378 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which stipulates that the Agreement recognizes an agreement between two or more persons to establish, modify, or terminate civil rights and obligations, which is not disputed by the parties in this civil case..

According to the terms of the concluded Agreement, clause 1.1 "The Customer assigns, the Contractor undertakes the development of the website and mobile application in accordance with the terms of reference (Appendix No. 1 to this Agreement), which is an integral part of this Agreement."

In accordance with clause 2.1. of the Agreement, "The cost of work under this Agreement is: 5,750,000 (five million seven hundred and fifty thousand) tenge."

In accordance with clauses 2.2-2.7 of the Agreement, "The down payment is 30% of the total cost of work under this agreement: 1,800,000 tenge. It is paid by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the Contract.

The second installment is 40% of the total cost of work under this agreement: 2,225,000 (two million two hundred twenty-five thousand) tenge. It is submitted by the Customer within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of the design.

The third installment is 30% of the total cost of work under this agreement: 1,725,000 tenge. It is submitted by the Customer upon completion of the work and the signing of the acceptance certificate of the work performed by the parties."

According to clause 1 of the Agreement, the amendments to clause 2.4 of the Agreement were demolished and set out in the following wording:

"2.4.1. The third installment is 15% of the total cost of works under this agreement 862,500 (eight hundred sixty two thousand five hundred) tenge.

2.4.2. The fourth installment is 15% of the total cost of the work under this agreement, 862,500 (eight hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred) tenge."

According to clause 2 of the Agreement, amendments were made to clause 2.7 of the Agreement and set out in the following wording:

"2.7.1. The third installment is paid by the Customer, within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of work on the second stage.

2.7.2. The fourth installment is paid by the Customer upon completion of the work and the signing of the acceptance certificate of the work performed by the parties, including the mobile application. "

The plaintiff made payments in the following order:

1. On 05/25/2021, according to payment order No. 805, an amount of 1,800,000 tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

2. On 08/23/2021, according to payment order No. 885, an amount of 2,225,000 tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

3. On 09/20/2022, according to payment order No. 885, an amount of 862,500 tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

4. On 22.12.2022, according to payment order No. 1722, an amount of 862,500 tenge was transferred to the Defendant's current account.

In accordance with clause 2.6. of the Agreement, "The second installment is paid by the Customer, within 3 banking days from the date of signing the interim act confirming the approval of the design."

The interim acceptance certificate for the design of all pages of the site dated 08/13/2021 was signed by the parties, and the second part of the payment, according to payment order No. 885 dated 08/23/2021, was paid by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, from 08/13/2021, the date of delivery of the completed work after 120 (one hundred and twenty) working days, the website and mobile application should have been developed and handed over to the Customer by 02/15/2022, the Plaintiff's representative claims.

We do not agree with the Plaintiff's arguments, whereas according to clause 3.1 of the Contract, "The Contractor undertakes to deliver the finished website and mobile application to the customer within 120 business days from the date of the Customer's approval of the design of all pages of the mobile application and the provision of data for enabling online payment, and the customer accepts them and pays."

However, the Plaintiff provided the data for enabling online payment on August 28, 2023, as evidenced by the correspondence created in the Whatsapp group " " where the Plaintiff informs the defendant, "Good afternoon, I am currently negotiating with the bank about acquiring, when they approve I will send the API description, you will need to connect to the site and application"

The origin of the screenshot is a mobile phone, which, if necessary, we can provide to the court for review.

Thus, the Plaintiff's arguments that the deadline for the delivery of the website and mobile application is 663 calendar days have no legal justification.

68, 72 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the grounds for its claims and objections, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability.

1) Development, coordination and approval of the website and mobile application structure (hereinafter referred to as the "MP");

2) Development, coordination and approval of the layout of the main page of the website and the MP;

3) Development, coordination and approval of layouts of internal pages of the website and MP;

4) Layout of the main page and internal pages of the website and MP;

5) Programming:

- peer-to-peer layouts of site pages and MP

- enabling Push notifications;

6) Development of a Website and MP Management System (CMS);

7) Content content of the website and MP (according to clause 3.8. of the Agreement);

8) Website and MP testing;

9) Publishing a mobile application in the App Store and Google Play and uploading the site to hosting;

10) Enabling online payment (Visa, Mastercard);

11) Delivery-acceptance of works.

According to the terms of the concluded Agreement, on 12/21/2022, the Defendant fully handed over according to the Act of Completed Works No. 1137, the developed website and mobile application to the Plaintiff, who in turn accepted the work and signed and sealed the ATS.

The Act of completed works No. 1137 dated 12/21/2022 was signed by the parties and was not subsequently challenged, nor is there any doubt about this civil case.

In addition, the Plaintiff makes Claims for the fulfillment of the technical specifications specified in Appendix No. 1 dated May 24, 2022, namely:

1) items 1-6 are fulfilled, with a claim to quality and timing;

- In terms of the above, we have provided exhaustive refuting arguments.

– Within the framework of the warranty service of the site and mobile service for the quality of the site, no complaints were received from the Plaintiff and there were no complaints from the Whatsapp group "Megarent & A-Lux" the only claim from the Plaintiff was a pre-trial claim from the Plaintiff's representative.

2) paragraph 7 - the content content was made only by the party

The plaintiff;

- Because the Plaintiff did not provide the content to the Defendant at all.

3) point 8 - testing of the site and MP was carried out repeatedly,

constantly identifying technical problems, site layout errors, which caused new problems to appear;

- We consider these arguments to be groundless since there were no global problems, if there were problems, the Plaintiff would not accept the defendant's work under the act, in addition, there was warranty service for the site.

4) item 10 - at the Defendant's insistence, the payment system was connected

the PayTech system, which soon stopped working, which the Defendant did not notify in any way, further, as part of the Guarantee, Internet acquiring from Bank CenterCredit JSC had to be connected, which was not done.

- Pay tech is a third-party organization, the defendant is not responsible for the operation of third-party programs. The plaintiff asked for advice on who our other clients work with, we advised Pay Tech. The contract stipulates that One payment system is connected, either pay tech or the Credit Center. The plaintiff chose Pay tech and the contract was concluded on 12/14/2023 and immediately after the Defendant installed the site and the application, more than a year passed after installation, we believe the Plaintiff for selfish purposes erased Pay tech or deleted it unnecessarily.

The plaintiff also demands to recover a legal penalty in the amount of 2,043,514.55 tenge from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP.

Whereas, according to Article 298 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a penalty is levied for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of an obligation if there are conditions for holding the debtor accountable for violating the obligation.

In accordance with this article, we consider the Plaintiff has not provided the relevant evidence of a violation of the terms of the contract by the Defendant. Thus, the amount of the penalty according to art. 296 The amount of the penalty is determined in a fixed amount of money or as a percentage of the amount of the unfulfilled or improperly fulfilled obligation is not justified.

Article 297 also stipulates that if the penalty to be paid (fine, fine) is excessively large in comparison with the creditor's losses, the court, at the request of the debtor, has the right to reduce the penalty (fine, fine), taking into account the degree of fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor and the interests of the debtor and the creditor that deserve attention.

In accordance with Article 6.7 of the Agreement, the Warranty period for the website under the Agreement is 6 (six) months from the date of signing the act of completed works, that is, until June 2023. During the warranty period, the Respondent undertakes to remedy all identified deficiencies in the Services independently at its own expense.

As part of the website's Warranty Service, the Defendant fulfilled his obligations under the Contract and all the plaintiff's wishes were corrected.

However, to date, the Plaintiff claims that they have new problems on the site that need to be fixed.

I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that the Website consists of complex codes that constantly require updating and maintenance by specialists who need to edit and update the software with each update.

By his actions, the plaintiff violates Articles 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The tasks and Principles of civil proceedings. Violation of the principles of civil proceedings, depending on its nature and materiality, entails the cancellation of judicial acts.

The plaintiff in the claim indicates that during the preparation and further participation in the process, the Plaintiff incurred expenses for the representative's services in the amount of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) tenge, which is confirmed by the Service Agreement No. TK11-08/2023 dated 12/07/2023, payment order No. 3500 dated 12/11/2023 and a power of attorney.

Accordingly, he requests the court to recover from M B G LLP in favor of O G LLP the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 500,000 tenge.

They do not agree with the claims of the Plaintiff's representative to recover the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 500,000 tenge, since In accordance with art. 113 of the CPC RK it is stipulated at the request of the party in whose favor the Decision was made, the court awards on the other hand the costs incurred to pay for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the process and is not in an employment relationship with this party, in the amount of the expenses actually incurred by the party (payment order, fiscal receipt). For property claims, the total amount of these expenses should not exceed ten percent of the satisfied portion of the claim. According to non-property requirements, the amount of expenses is collected within reasonable limits, but should not exceed three hundred monthly calculation indices.

Article 6. The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Interpretation of the norms of civil legislation" provides: The norms of civil legislation must be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression.

During the study of the Service Agreement No. TK11-08/2023 dated 12/07/2023, payment order No. 3500 dated 12/11/2023 and power of attorney, we found that the specified agreement was concluded with Law Firm K & P LLP, where I am the head, but I am the head, in court She did not participate in the processes. The power of attorney to represent the Plaintiff's interests was issued by T. A.A., on the basis of which he signed the Lawsuit through the judicial office.

However, the Plaintiff's representative, T. A.A., did not provide the court with what relation he has to Law Firm K &P LLP or the company to him, for example (Employment order at the time of filing the claim) Since the Order of a legal entity is not a strict accounting, we believe it is necessary to request an extract from the pension fund on the accrual of pension accruals to the employee of Law Firm K & P LLP.

Accordingly, we consider that the representative of T. A.A. cannot claim compensation for his services, since, according to art. 113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Plaintiff did not actually bear the expenses of the representative of T. A.A.

In addition, legally, consultant T. A.A. provided the court with an extract from the register of the Chamber of Legal Advisers dated January 08, 2024, which is valid until March 31, 2024, respectively, as of today, legally, consultant T. A.A. is not entitled to represent the interests of his client in accordance with art. 75, 76 of the ZRK On Advocacy and Legal Assistance, where it is stipulated that a legal consultant is an individual who has a higher legal education, at least two years of experience in a legal profession, has passed certification, is a member of the Chamber of Legal Advisers and provides legal assistance. Be a member of one of the Chambers of legal advisers to provide legal assistance in the form of representation of interests of individuals in courts.

Thus, Dear Court, the Plaintiff's arguments that the terms of the Contract are not being fulfilled are not valid and are not based on the above arguments.

According to Articles 67, paragraphs 1, Article 68 of the CPC RK, evidence is considered reliable if, as a result of verification, it turns out that it corresponds to reality, and each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve a civil case.

Article 72 of the CPC RK. The "Duty of Proof" provides for Each

the party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims – which is not observed in the statement of claim.

Being a decent and responsible person, the Defendant has never refused to fulfill his Contractual obligations to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff himself did not undertake any constructive dialogue to resolve the current situation. To date, the defendant has fulfilled all the clauses of the contract, however, the Plaintiff himself has observed abuse of the clauses of the contract and the norms of legislation for his unscrupulous selfish purposes.

For review by the court, we provide correspondence via the Whatsapp messenger where the Plaintiff says that the company is being sold and asks if we can provide technical support to the new owners.

We believe that if the Plaintiff requests technical support for the application for the new owners of her company, we can conclude that everything is working and they are satisfied for 2024.

We consider the Plaintiff's arguments to be unsubstantiated and unjustified from the point of view of relevance and admissibility as evidence in accordance with art. 68 of the CPC RK, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together sufficiency to resolve a civil case – in this civil case, we observe the groundlessness of Claims and Defamation in relation to The defendant.

According to Article 392 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, when interpreting the terms of a contract, the court takes into account the literal meaning of the words and expressions contained therein. The literal meaning of a contract clause, if it is unclear, is determined by comparing it with other terms and the meaning of the contract as a whole.

Also, the selfish thoughts of the Plaintiff will not be realized, since according to Article 147 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, transactions are actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at establishing, changing or terminating civil rights and obligations.

The plaintiff in this civil case does not dispute in his claims the Contract for the development of the website and mobile application No. 588 dated May 24, 2021 and the Additional Agreement to the Contract No. 588 dated 08/19/2022.

In addition, the signed Act of Completed Works No. 1137 dated 12/21/2022 confirms the proper performance of contractual obligations in accordance with the norms of Articles 271, 272 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Obligations arise from the contract and the Obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business practices or other commonly imposed requirements.

Thus, we consider the Plaintiff, without recognizing the above-mentioned documents as invalid or without terminating them in court, has no right to demand recovery of the amount under the contract, since the Contract and the Act of Work performed comply with the requirements of the legislation and are legally binding on the parties.

By virtue of art. 219 part 2 of the CPC, the Court does not have the right to change the subject or the basis of the claim on its own initiative and is obliged to resolve the case within the limits of the claims stated by the plaintiff.

In accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the exercise of civil rights should not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other subjects of law.

Citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation, the moral principles of society, and the rules of business ethics for entrepreneurs.

This obligation cannot be excluded or limited by the contract. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed.

Actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at harming another person, abuse of the right in other forms, as well as the exercise of the right in contradiction with its purpose are not allowed.

As part of the consideration of this civil case, the court ordered a judicial examination of computer technology tools and issued a corresponding Ruling on February 14, 2024, where the following questions were posed to the expert:

1. Does the website and mobile application comply with the terms of reference according to Appendix No. 1?

- As a result of a comparative study, the Expert concluded that the Defendant's obligations were not fulfilled in full according to the Terms of Reference in PDF format on 36 pages. Whereas the Court asked the Expert whether the website and mobile application comply with the terms of reference according to Appendix No. 1 and not the Terms of Reference in PDF format on 36 pages. Thus, the expert went beyond the questions posed.

2. Does the website and mobile application comply with the terms of reference as of the date of filing the claim?

3. Have any changes been made to the website and mobile application for the period from 08.01.2024 to 15.02.2024, if so, under which account and what changes and additions were made?

4. What was the content of the website at the time of filing the claim?

5. When were the last changes made in the period preceding the filing of the claim?

6. Has the defendant performed all the work under the contract?

In addition, the Technical Specification was provided to the expert in PDF format on 36 pages and on the basis of which the Expert's conclusions were drawn, with which we, the Defendant's side, were not familiar and have no idea about the current technical specification since the Defendant did not draw up and did not sign the Technical Specification on 36 sheets.

Dear court, the act was signed in 2022. And the expert has been making an assessment on file changes since January 08, 2024. Which is fundamentally incorrect, since during this period any changes on the website and in the mobile application could have been made by the customer himself in 2 years.

We believe that the expert should have checked the file changes from the date of signing the certificates of completed work, and not from January 8, 2024. And where did this date come from? Why January 8th? Strange.

The defendant has a mobile application for download, published in the application in Google Play on December 15, 2022. Google Play is a serious organization that would never accept or add an application that was NOT working to its market without verification.

It can also be noted that in addition to changing the files on the server, there is also the admin panel of the site, where you can also easily delete all the content, which the customer did. At the time of delivery, everything was working as expected. And there is a clause in the contract, if the customer himself makes changes to the code, the contractor is no longer responsible for the correct operation of the website.

Regarding the content of the site, clause 3.6. of the Agreement clearly provides "The materials necessary for filling out and registration of the site and mobile application are provided by the customer. The period for the provision of services is extended accordingly to the time of delay – thus, we believe the Plaintiff himself did not provide these materials to the Defendant.

Therefore, we consider the examination of file changes from January 8, 2024 to be generally incorrect. It is necessary to carry out from 2022, starting in December from the moment of the signed ATS.

And we emphasize once again that Appendix No. 1 is a technical specification signed by the parties and not their TOR, which is not signed by either party.

According to Article 5 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Forensic expert activity", an expert performing his expert activity is obliged to adhere to the principles of comprehensiveness, completeness, objectivity and scientific validity of forensic expert research.

Article 92 of the CPC stipulates that an expert's opinion is not binding on the court when adopting a judicial act.

In connection with the above, we believe in this case there is a low-quality and biased examination. The main principles of independent experts are objectivity and reliability, which is not respected when making an opinion. These violations affect the interests of the defendant.

In accordance with art.15 of the CPC RK, the parties choose their position, ways and means of defending it independently and independently of the court, other bodies and persons in the course of civil proceedings.

166 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the defendant submits to the court a response to the claim with attached documents that refute the arguments regarding the claim, as well as copies of the response and the documents attached to it.

Based on the above and guided by 166 CPC RK, the Court was asked:

· The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant for the recovery of the amount under the Contract for the development of the website and mobile application - to refuse satisfaction;

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

The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

The case of termination of the Contract for the development of a website and a mobile application

Download document