How to secure full payment from an unscrupulous buyer for goods sold on credit

The team at Winnerlex successfully won another case defending the client’s rights against unscrupulous counterparties.

The interest in this particular case lies in the fact that when our client sold goods on credit, the buyer accepted the goods without any objections. However, during use, the buyer refused to pay the full price and demanded a 30% discount, citing non-compliance of the goods with quality requirements and referencing Article 678 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which grants the buyer the right to request a proportional price reduction if the goods are of inadequate quality.

At first glance, the buyer’s objections to the seller’s claims for full payment seemed justified, and the seller might have resigned themselves to significant financial losses. The challenge for us was that Winnerlex’s team got involved after the court had already opened the case.

But this is exactly where the work of qualified lawyers comes into play — finding the right way to protect the client’s interests.

Winnerlex’s team built a legal position stating that the buyer violated the procedure for accepting goods based on quality, and therefore, the buyer had no right to refer to the goods’ quality during the court proceedings for the full payment of the goods. During the process, it was argued that by signing the delivery invoices acknowledging the goods were accepted without objections, and later using the goods in their business activities, the buyer effectively confirmed that the goods were of proper quality, meaning they were not entitled to refuse full payment.

The defendant’s representative, attempting to delay the case, filed a motion for a judicial examination, asking for the quality and actual price of the goods to be determined. On the other hand, Winnerlex’s lawyer argued that the buyer violated the quality acceptance procedure by not inviting the seller for joint inspection and the preparation of a mutual quality acceptance act, so there was no need to question the quality of the goods at this point.

Winnerlex’s position was upheld by both the first and appellate courts.

The courts ordered the opponent to pay not only the full amount of the claim — the principal debt, penalties, three percent annual interest, and all court fees — but also nearly all the legal costs for both instances, exceeding 50,000 UAH.

It is worth noting that the aforementioned sums were actually collected from the defendant in favor of our client, ensuring full justice was restored in this case.