The company sold the building on August 1, 1994 to the Partnership under the contract of sale 1, and on September 1, 1994 to the Trade House under the contract of sale 2.
Contract 2 was immediately registered with the Bureau of Technical Inventory, but Contract 1 was not. In 2004, the Trading House on the basis of contract 2 registered its ownership of the building as an immovable property in the Federal Registration Service. In 2004, the Partnership, considering itself the owner, sold the same building on August 1, 2004 to Zebra LLC. Zebra LLC applied for registration of ownership to the Fed, where it was denied because the same object has already been registered.
On August 1, 2005, Zebra LLC filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of the invalidity (nullity) of contract 2 between the Firm and the Trade House.
Defendant - Trading House, indicated that the limitation period for the stated requirements has expired. The plaintiff - Zebra LLC Ltd. based its requirements on the fact that, by virtue of paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation 15/18 of November 12, 2001, the principles of recognizing this agreement as invalid are applicable The USSR and republics (Art. 42 "Statute of limitations"). Since he learned about the violation of his right only after he was denied registration of property rights - November 1, 2004, the limitation period should be calculated from this date, and, therefore, it has not expired.
Does the plaintiff have the right to satisfy their claims?

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be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated.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.