Even if the supply contract does not provide for operational economic sanctions, the fact that the buyer has delayed payment for previously received products is sufficient reason to suspend the following deliveries.

This conclusion was reached by the Economic Court of Kiev in a dispute between two economic entities, where the legal position of the supplier was represented by the " Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners" Law Firm.

The company entered into a contract for the supply of products for a total amount of several million UAH. with a large company in the oil and gas industry of Ukraine. The company has the indebtedness on payment of previously acquired parties, in connection with which the company, sending warning letter, to suspend further delivery of products.

The buyer company appealed to the court, citing a breach by the company of the contract in terms of delivery time and demanded to recover almost UAH 1 million from the defendant. fines and penalties.

"The suspension of obligations to supply refers to the operational and economic sanctions. Moreover, Article 235 of the Economic Code of Ukraine allows the application of only those sanctions provided for by the contract, ”said Timur Michailov, a lawyer of "Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners", who represented the defendant’s interests in court.

The lawyer pointed out that these are unscrupulous buyers who, having admitted late payment of the goods, however, require a continued supply. "So they get an additional free credit from the supplier, - he explained. “The argument used in such situations comes down to the fact that the contract does not provide for the counterparty’s right to suspend deliveries.”

At the same time, the lawyer drew attention to the provisions of Art. 692 of the Civil Code, according to which, if under the contract of sale, a seller is obliged to transfer to the buyer other goods as well as unpaid, and he has the right to suspend the transfer of this goods until full payment of the previously transferred goods come, unless otherwise provided by the contract or acts of civil law.

The court agreed that in this case the actions of the defendant were legitimate and became a direct consequence of the commission of the economic offense by the plaintiff, and therefore fully dismissed the claim.