Civil law seminar
Replenishment date: 06.02.2014
Content: 40206111205853.rar (35.38 KB)
️Automatic issue of goods ✔️
️Automatic issue of goods ✔️
Sales:
1
Refunds:
0
Reviews:
0
Views:
106
Description
Quest 1 (94)
Question 1
Danilko's attorney, having learned about the change in the market situation, decides to sell the goods at the maximum current price before it falls. This decision had to be made without delay, since the market situation was not stable and the price could fall again at any time. Danilko could not agree on the current situation with Zabralov, the principal, “due to his absence in the city and inaccessibility. Taking care of the interests of the client, Danilko entered into an agreement on the sale of goods. The deal was executed. The next day Zabralo appeared in the city and at the first opportunity Danilko informed him about the deal. On the same day, the price on the market changed and the cost of the goods was two kopecks more, which in general was, albeit small, but a loss for Zabralov. Zabralo ”filed a lawsuit against Danilko, t. he suffered losses as a result of Danilko's actions. What decision should the court make?
Question 2
In accordance with Art. 919 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Udaloe on 12.07.2004 handed over his wedding ring to the pawnshop, the storage agreement in the pawnshop was certified by the issuance by the pawnshop to Udalov, as the depositor, of a personal safe receipt. The contract was concluded for two months. 02.10.2004 Udaloe came to the pawnshop to redeem his wedding ring, but the pawnshop refused to provide it, referring to the fact that in accordance with Art. 350 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the ring has already been sold at a public auction as mortgaged property, for which, in accordance with Art. 349 GKRF foreclosed. Are the actions of a pawnshop legal?
Question 3
The organization applied to the arbitration court with a claim against the airline for the recovery of losses caused as a result of the plane crash. The airline's liability for harm to third parties was insured by virtue of clause 1 of Art. 131 of the Air Code of the Russian Federation of 19.03.1997, No. 60-FZ, which provides for compulsory insurance of the aircraft owner's liability to third parties. The court, at the request of the plaintiff, involved the insurer in the case as a second defendant. The insurer objected to his involvement in the case, arguing that his relationship with the plaintiff arises not from the fact of causing harm, but from the insurance contract, in which the plaintiff is the beneficiary. The insurer did not harm the plaintiff and cannot act as a defendant in the dispute under consideration. The court dismissed the insurer's arguments. Did the court reasonably satisfy the plaintiff's petition to involve the insurance company in the case as a second defendant?
Question 4
The driver of the motor depot Ponomarev drove a technically sound car in full compliance with the rules of the road. Suddenly, a drunk citizen ran out onto the carriageway near the car Ponomarev was driving. To avoid hitting him, Ponomarev was forced to sharply turn the car to the left. As a result, the citizen who created the emergency was knocked down, and Ponomarev's car hit a car that was parked on the side of the road and belonged to the Zub enterprise. The company filed a claim against the car depot for compensation of 100000 rubles - the amount of damage caused by damage to the car belonging to the company. According to the conclusion of the auto-technical examination, Ponomarev did not have the technical ability to prevent hitting either the citizen or the plaintiff. The defendant asked to refuse the claim, referring to the fact that in this case the owner of the source of increased danger acted in a state of extreme necessity. Did the car depot become liable to the injured citizen and to the Zub enterprise?
Question 5
An accident occurred on the Garden Ring in Moscow, as a result of which two cars collided, the drivers and passengers of the cars were not injured. During the collision, they shot down a citizen - Sidorov, who survived, but was in the hospital for a long time. After his recovery, Sidorov filed a lawsuit in court for reimbursement of the costs incurred for treatment and compensation for moral damage, he indicated the drivers of the cars involved in the accident as defendants. The court examined p
Question 1
Danilko's attorney, having learned about the change in the market situation, decides to sell the goods at the maximum current price before it falls. This decision had to be made without delay, since the market situation was not stable and the price could fall again at any time. Danilko could not agree on the current situation with Zabralov, the principal, “due to his absence in the city and inaccessibility. Taking care of the interests of the client, Danilko entered into an agreement on the sale of goods. The deal was executed. The next day Zabralo appeared in the city and at the first opportunity Danilko informed him about the deal. On the same day, the price on the market changed and the cost of the goods was two kopecks more, which in general was, albeit small, but a loss for Zabralov. Zabralo ”filed a lawsuit against Danilko, t. he suffered losses as a result of Danilko's actions. What decision should the court make?
Question 2
In accordance with Art. 919 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Udaloe on 12.07.2004 handed over his wedding ring to the pawnshop, the storage agreement in the pawnshop was certified by the issuance by the pawnshop to Udalov, as the depositor, of a personal safe receipt. The contract was concluded for two months. 02.10.2004 Udaloe came to the pawnshop to redeem his wedding ring, but the pawnshop refused to provide it, referring to the fact that in accordance with Art. 350 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the ring has already been sold at a public auction as mortgaged property, for which, in accordance with Art. 349 GKRF foreclosed. Are the actions of a pawnshop legal?
Question 3
The organization applied to the arbitration court with a claim against the airline for the recovery of losses caused as a result of the plane crash. The airline's liability for harm to third parties was insured by virtue of clause 1 of Art. 131 of the Air Code of the Russian Federation of 19.03.1997, No. 60-FZ, which provides for compulsory insurance of the aircraft owner's liability to third parties. The court, at the request of the plaintiff, involved the insurer in the case as a second defendant. The insurer objected to his involvement in the case, arguing that his relationship with the plaintiff arises not from the fact of causing harm, but from the insurance contract, in which the plaintiff is the beneficiary. The insurer did not harm the plaintiff and cannot act as a defendant in the dispute under consideration. The court dismissed the insurer's arguments. Did the court reasonably satisfy the plaintiff's petition to involve the insurance company in the case as a second defendant?
Question 4
The driver of the motor depot Ponomarev drove a technically sound car in full compliance with the rules of the road. Suddenly, a drunk citizen ran out onto the carriageway near the car Ponomarev was driving. To avoid hitting him, Ponomarev was forced to sharply turn the car to the left. As a result, the citizen who created the emergency was knocked down, and Ponomarev's car hit a car that was parked on the side of the road and belonged to the Zub enterprise. The company filed a claim against the car depot for compensation of 100000 rubles - the amount of damage caused by damage to the car belonging to the company. According to the conclusion of the auto-technical examination, Ponomarev did not have the technical ability to prevent hitting either the citizen or the plaintiff. The defendant asked to refuse the claim, referring to the fact that in this case the owner of the source of increased danger acted in a state of extreme necessity. Did the car depot become liable to the injured citizen and to the Zub enterprise?
Question 5
An accident occurred on the Garden Ring in Moscow, as a result of which two cars collided, the drivers and passengers of the cars were not injured. During the collision, they shot down a citizen - Sidorov, who survived, but was in the hospital for a long time. After his recovery, Sidorov filed a lawsuit in court for reimbursement of the costs incurred for treatment and compensation for moral damage, he indicated the drivers of the cars involved in the accident as defendants. The court examined p