Submit your application

The plaintiff threatened the judge for not explaining the terms of the lease

Even a solution to an economic dispute can become a breeding ground for threats! For example, the consideration of one of the cases, during which the plaintiff asked to explain to him certain clauses of the land plot lease agreement, ended with the tenant dissatisfied with the court decision not in his favor, took it as a personal insult and promised the judge that he would answer for it!

The judge first suggested to the plaintiff to challenge the decision on appeal court, and then, wishing to clarify the situation, asked the plaintiff if he was threatening him.

The plaintiff replied that when he threatens, people understand this from the first word, and in this case he simply warns that the judge will regret the decision.

What caused the situation?

The entrepreneur went to court with a clarifying claim, in which he asked to interpret the terms of the lease agreement for the land plot, which he rented from the local council.

The plaintiff was interested in specific articles on which, in his opinion, he and the landlord did not have the same understanding of their content.

He believed that these conditions contradict each other and are not consistent with the provisions of the law, therefore, are the reason for the dispute.

“The plaintiff asked for clarification of the provisions allowing him to revise the size and amount of rent without amending the contract before its expiration. He “got hooked” on the term “revise”, which, in his opinion, supported by the Academic Explanatory Dictionary, can be interpreted in different ways when drafting contracts.

In this case, the plaintiff also referred to the legislative procedure for revising the rent, according to which changes are made after the agreement of the parties and are fixed in writing, and not carried out automatically.

The case was considered for a long time! The plaintiff also sought an interpretation of the terms of the prolongation, additional agreements, touched upon the settled disputes on the debt, etc.

The outcome of the “dispute in regards revision ” consideration!

The court, having analyzed all the circumstances, did not find any formulations that were incomprehensible and complicating the fulfillment of the contractual obligations by the plaintiff in the lease agreement.

It was decided that the plaintiff, at the time of signing the contract, understood its terms and did not need to interpret them. In satisfaction of the claims, he was refused.



Remote participation of persons in court sessions

The participation of the accused (convicted) person in the trial by video link, can it be considered by law as direct personal? The answer to the question contains the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and this material. We analyze One of the innovations introduced in 2012 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is the […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine explained how to recover moral damage from the state

The Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine has shown to citizens that the “inviolable” state, according to the conviction of many, can also be brought to justice! With the conclusion contained in the ruling on case No. 823/782/16 of 15.08.19, the CAC of the Supreme Court “punished” the state body for improper consideration […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the interpretation of treaties on the basis of contra proferentem

The Ukrainian Supreme Court “remembered” about the “contra proferentem” principle! By the decision in case No. 756/1381/17-c of 03/25/2020, he consolidated the legal conclusion based on this doctrine. It reads: “If the interpretation of the content of a written agreement by means of general methods is impossible, the contra proferentem interpretation is used – the […]

“Unjustifiably acquired funds” and “advance payment” are different concepts

The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by a resolution on case No. 910/21154 / 17 of 15.02.2019, distinguished between the concepts of “advance payment” and “groundlessly acquired funds”! Legal conclusion promulgated Initially! One legal entity applied to the economic court with a claim against another legal entity to recover the prepayment amount under a contract for […]

The granddaughter whiсh is registered in the grandmother’s house, for donation is not an obstacle!

The grandmother in court proved her right to donate housing, despite the fact that her little granddaughter was registered in it! The Supreme court, by its conclusion in case No. 385/1598/18, determined that she is not a parent and not the one who replaces him, therefore, she is free in the right of alienation! Here […]

SCU: matrimonial property is not always divided equally!

The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its decision in case 308/4390/18 of 16.12.19, determined the aspects of deviation from the principle of equality of shares in the division of jointly acquired property of spouses. The fact of the presence of children living with the father (on his full support) and the mother, who does not […]