a Resident of Ekaterinburg as a professional, was invited to make a roof to a large roof. But for hard work he was not paid. Worker went to court, but there is a loss – the labor contract is not signed, and since there is no paper – free.

Losing local courts, the roofer did not give up and reached the Supreme court. There it was studied and said – so what if there is no contract, the roof-it did. And most importantly, the Supreme court explained that our laws in such a situation, stand on the side of the employee.

This story began with a lawsuit in the district court of the inhabitant of Ekaterinburg. Defendant listed certain company, with which the plaintiff asked to recover 850 190 rubles.

the court worker said that three months he on a verbal agreement with the society was putting the roof in a 7500 square meters. But for the work he paid nothing. Cost of work performed – 850 190 rubles, and asked it to recover from the company.

the District court in the lawsuit the citizen refused. Sverdlovsk regional court confirmed that it agreed with the refusal of colleagues. So the citizen has reached the Supreme court. Judicial Board on civil cases VS material cases studied and with the arguments of the roofer agreed. And in the decisions of the local courts found error.

that’s what I saw in the case of the Supreme court.

District court when denied roofer, stated that “the absence of admissible evidence of the size of unjustified enrichment.” And the district court said that there is no evidence that the firm is enriched at the expense of the plaintiff.

an Appeal from such findings agreed and added that “the written form of the deal were not met,” and this requires the 161st article of the Civil code. And presented by the plaintiff of written evidence “it is impossible to establish the existence of those agreements, which, according to the plaintiff, were violated by the defendant”.

But the explanation in this case of the Supreme court. The Civil code article 702. It States that under the contract one party (contractor) undertakes to perform on the instructions of other party (customer) some work and pass the result to the customer. And the customer undertakes to accept result of work and pay.

According to article 432 of the Civil code the contract is considered concluded if the parties reached agreement on all terms of the contract. Essential conditions of the subject contract, as well as all of the conditions on which the parties must be reached agreement.

with respect to contract important terms and conditions of the contract is its subject and deadlines. By the rules of article 431 of the Civil code to determine the content of the Treaty in case of ambiguity, it is necessary to find out the common will of the parties, taking into account the purpose of the Treaty. Taken into account all the circumstances that preced��satisfy the contract. This is a negotiation, correspondence, practice established between the parties, etc.

In the case of a dispute about zaklyuchennomu of the contract, the Supreme court said, colleagues had to figure out the circumstances and evidence “in their entirety and interrelation in favor of preserving, not cancellation of obligations”. Important conclusion: if the parties have not agreed on any important condition of the contract, but then have actually fulfilled such a condition, the contract is concluded.

the Lack of a contract does not relieve the customer from payment of actually executed by the contractor and accepted by the customer works. If the result of the work performed is at customer’s and it had no comments on the quality and volume of work and the result of the work can be used, the absence of the contract cannot be the basis for exemption of the customer from payment for work.

a Different approach, said the court, would not protect honest contractors who perform construction work, could not get them for a payment that is in conflict with article 60 of the civil code.

the Conclusion of the local courts, that the plaintiff did not perform work, based on the absence of the contract and of the acts confirming the transfer of work from the contractor to the customer, made in violation of these standards without studies and assessments provided evidence to the court. In particular, the photos and quotes that brought the plaintiff. Slater petitioned for a call in court of witnesses who participated in the acceptance of the roof. But he motion to the court denied.

the SC repealed adopted in the case of decisions and ordered the dispute to be revised to reflect the clarification.