The organization on its own carried out the constructio
📂 For Education Students
👤 HotRef
Product Description
The organization on its own carried out the construction of a garage for their own needs. Subsequently, the construction was suspended, the garage as an object not completed with construction was transferred to the balance of the organization.
The municipal enterprise, without the knowledge of the owner, dismantled the garage and removed the concrete slabs, using them further for their own purposes.
Since the return of the plates in kind was impossible, the organization appealed to the enterprise with a claim for recovery of damages resulting from the illegal actions of the defendant. The plaintiff required to recover the cost of the exported plates and the costs incurred during their installation.
Considering that there is an obligation on the side of the defendant as a result of unjust enrichment, the claimant based his requirements on the norms of Articles 1102, 1105 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The respondent in the response to the claim indicated that there was no obligation due to unjust enrichment. In this case, there was an infliction of non-contractual harm. The Code provides for special rules governing the procedure for compensation for harm, and therefore, by virtue of sub-clause 1 of Article 1103 of the Code, claims for the return of unjust enrichment cannot be satisfied.
Solve the matter on the merits.
The municipal enterprise, without the knowledge of the owner, dismantled the garage and removed the concrete slabs, using them further for their own purposes.
Since the return of the plates in kind was impossible, the organization appealed to the enterprise with a claim for recovery of damages resulting from the illegal actions of the defendant. The plaintiff required to recover the cost of the exported plates and the costs incurred during their installation.
Considering that there is an obligation on the side of the defendant as a result of unjust enrichment, the claimant based his requirements on the norms of Articles 1102, 1105 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The respondent in the response to the claim indicated that there was no obligation due to unjust enrichment. In this case, there was an infliction of non-contractual harm. The Code provides for special rules governing the procedure for compensation for harm, and therefore, by virtue of sub-clause 1 of Article 1103 of the Code, claims for the return of unjust enrichment cannot be satisfied.
Solve the matter on the merits.
Additional Information
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
Related Products
Solution of the C2 Option 04 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the C2 Option 05 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Dievsky V.A. - Solution of task C2 variant 22 (C2-22)
Seller: Михаил_Перович
Solution K5 B04 termehu of Reshebnik Yablonsky AA 1978
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the K2 version 07 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the C2 Option 14 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Solution of the C2 Option 08 Dievskaya VA Malyshev IA
Seller: TerMaster
Conflict law test Synergy answers 90/100 points
Seller: sinergey