See more
Publication date: 14.05.2024
Unreasonably acquired funds are not subject to return on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, if a person, knowing that he does not have such an obligation, nevertheless made their payment.
This was emphasized by the Civil Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court in the decision dated April 17, 2024 in case No. 127/12240/22.
According to the circumstances of the case
The plaintiff asked to recover the money from the defendant as unjustifiably acquired by the latter. He indicated that he and the defendant had verbally agreed on the creation and financing of a joint business project with its subsequent registration and allocation of shares. There were no written contracts between them.
To ensure the fulfillment of the agreed agreements, in the period from July to December 2021, he made money transfers to the defendant's bank account in the amount of more than half a million hryvnias. However, the defendant has not fulfilled his obligations regarding the creation of a business and avoids communication.
Therefore, the plaintiff believed that the specified funds are subject to return as unjustified acquisition on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
The city court satisfied the lawsuit and recovered the unjustified funds in favor of the plaintiff. The appellate court upheld this decision.
The courts took into account the fact that the money belonging to the plaintiff was acquired by the defendant without a sufficient legal basis, so there are grounds for applying the provisions of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine to disputed legal relations.
Conclusions of the Supreme Court
The civil court of cassation as part of the Supreme Court pointed out the erroneousness of the court's conclusions, refused to grant the claim, making the following legal conclusions.The interpretation of Articles 1212, 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine shows that when determining whether unjustly acquired funds are subject to the injured person, it should be taken into account that acts of civil legislation must comply with the content of general principles, in particular good faith.
The doctrine of venire contra factum proprium is based on the principle of good faith. Conduct contrary to good faith and fair business practices includes, in particular, conduct that is inconsistent with a party's prior statements or conduct, provided that the other party acting to its detriment reasonably relies on them.
"Courts did not pay attention to the fact that unreasonably acquired funds are not subject to return, if the injured person knows that he has no obligation (no duty) to pay the funds, but makes such a payment, because the specified person behaves inconsistently, if later demands the return of the paid funds," noted the Central Committee of the Supreme Court.
The court noted that the plaintiff voluntarily transferred funds to the defendant's card account, knowing that there was no obligation (no obligation) between him and the defendant to return the funds, and therefore the plaintiff's behavior was contradictory (that is, the victim freely and without mistake agreed to the occurrence of unfavorable consequences for oneself). At the same time, the plaintiff transferred funds to the defendant for a long time, namely for half a year, regularly, in different amounts (there were 37 payments in total), noting that the purpose of the payment is to top up the defendant's card account.Since the plaintiff was not obliged to transfer the funds due to the lack of contractual relations with the defendant regarding the creation of a joint business, as well as any other obligations, however, he made these payments for a long time, regularly, his behavior regarding the demand for the return of these funds is obviously contradictory and dishonest.
You may be interested in the following articles: consultation with a lawyer, consultation with a lawyer, analysis of documents, legal analysis of the situation, written consultation, verification of documents by a lawyer, lawyers, documents, assistance of a lawyer online, a lawyer online, a legal opinion, a legal opinion of a lawyer, a lawyer online
Therefore, there are no grounds for meeting claims for recovery of unreasonably acquired funds.
