[ad_1]
The Supreme Court considered a non-standard case for the Ukrainian judiciary. A person (Client) contacted a popular blogger for services to increase the number of subscribers.
The parties entered into an agreement, under the terms of which the blogger was to hold an offer, which required 50,000 new subscribers for each of the Client’s accounts.
The fees for the blogger’s services reached 500,000 UAH. The contract also provided for the blogger’s liability if the services are not properly provided in the form of payment for half of the value of the services (250,000 hryvnias).
However, according to the results of the advertising campaign, the Client’s account did not receive a large number of subscribers – it was possible to collect less than 23 thousand people. A dispute arose between the parties and the Client applied to the commercial court to protect his rights.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim and issued a fine of 250,000 hryvnias for the Client. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.
The Supreme Court, reviewing the decisions of the courts of lower cases, accepted the decision of the first court and the arguments of the lawyers of the Client, and the main decisions..
In other words, the Supreme Court stated that the legal relationship that arose between the blogger and the Client was complex and combined several types of services at the same time: advertising services, management services, and video content creation.
The court decided that the failure to collect the number of subscribers was a serious violation of the terms of the contract, therefore, the Client directly demanded the amount of the fine in the court. At the same time, the court did not find any reason to settle the claim in another part, in particular, for the lost money, the restitution of the property and the personal damage.
This case illustrates one of the foundations of civil law – the obligation of contract, which must be applied even if the place where the contract is made is a social network.
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105178962
The commercial cassation court of the Supreme Court decided on 07 July 2022 in case No. 910/1801/21
[ad_2]
Source link