We will tell you how to exclude from the contract some clauses, which the law does not prohibit there, however, they are not beneficial.
In a situation, where the counterparty wants to receive payments for periods, when the contract is not valid, first of all, disputed clauses of the contract may be considered by the court as null and void. If the legislation does not mention this clause as an essential condition of the contract, such clause may follow from its purpose and essence.
For example, upon termination of the lease contract, the lessor may not receive payment for the period in which it has repossessed the financing. It is important to realize that, even if this condition of receiving payments for waiting is included everywhere, there is a possibility to challenge it, because this condition contradicts the essence of leasing as a form of financing.
The position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this issue help lessees to get the maximum, when calculating counter debts with reference to the invalidity of onerous lease terms.
Everything is not limited to the lease agreement. We show you some cases, where there are also impermissible conditions not specified in the Law:
1. An entrepreneur undertook to provide construction supervision services to a contractor, but worked in a similar position for the customer
2. The lessee may not, even with the consent of the lessor, demand termination of the contract for the supply of leased property
A clause of the contract that reads “the parties have no property claims against each other” may be considered by the court as a waiver of judicial protection. Such a contract may be recognized as null and void.
Also, the clause on the order of settlement can be recognized as invalid. For example, in case No. A70-16284/2021the order of settlement turned out to be meaningless and contrary to the law.
Moreover, Bank cannot charge a separate fee for actions that are part of the essence of the banking service. Judicial practice shows that such commissions are illegal, if such actions do not create a separate property benefit for the client, then payment for them contradicts the essence of legislative regulation. According to courts in such situations it is necessary to check such contradiction through assessment of useful effect of banking service.
If there is no beneficial effect, there can be no commission.