Inmar Legal Ltd Winning the Case of Unjust Enrichment on Behalf of Their Client
Inmar Legal Ltd succeeded in pleading their client’s cause in a long and complicated dispute of charging for unjust enrichment under a non-fulfilled supply contract.
The client (the buyer) had negotiations with the defendant in 2017 regarding supply of a complex part for civil engineering equipment – a pump. There was no written agreement between the parties, all arrangements were held using a messenger, and in part agreed on orally.
The part they received from the supplier was not accepted by the plaintiff: it deviated significantly from what they had wanted. The buyer instantly informed the supplier of the unconformity of the product they received (via a messenger as well). The supplier did not respond for several days and only after the third claim from the buyer they sent details of where the inadequate part should have been returned, which the buyer did.
Receiving the item, the supplier disappeared answering to no calls and messages from the buyer. The latter could not wait any longer to recover the amount prepaid before delivery and resorted to court.
The complexity of the case was that there was no evidence both on the plaintiff’s part relating to the quality of the inadequate product and whether the procedure for inspection of the item upon its receipt from the supplier had been observed as per the Russian Federation Civil Code, and on the defendant’s part in regards to whether the plaintiff had allegedly returned the part to them non-negligibly damaged, of which the supplier had made an inspection report (of this report the plaintiff found out only while in court).
Inmar through Ksenia Rubets representing the client in this case collected the following body of evidence to justify the claims: year-2017 correspondence between the parties’ representatives associated with agreeing upon the supply conditions, with the plaintiff refusing to accept the product; witnesses who had carried out the acceptance and inspection of the item were interviewed; a transportation company was brought into the proceedings clarifying to the court which exact part they had received in 2017 and returned from the plaintiff to the supplier.
The two years of consideration resulted in the court satisfying the plaintiff-s claim, exacting from the supplier the amount of unjust enrichment plus interest for the retention of the funds and the plaintiff’s costs of justice.
This case is a perfect example for the approach courts have had recently to evidence, which have increasingly been the parties’ dialogues via social networks, messengers, and e-mail, even if the agreement, if any, did not specify such mode of communication between the parties.