The sole proprietor Klimov signed a contract for the repair of an apartment with Yelnikov. The contract stipulated that Klimov would start work on April 1, and by August 1 he would be obliged to tile the bathroom walls, re-floor and ottsiklerovat parquet, paint the ceilings and paste over the walls with wallpaper. All work is done from the customer´s materials.
However, on April 1, instead of Klimov, his brother Vetrov came, who explained that Klimov had fallen ill and was in the hospital, and had turned over all repair work to him.
When the object was handed over on August 1, it turned out that the parquet floor was poorly laid, there were misalignments, goals, the tile was laid unevenly, its ornament did not correspond to what was stated. Elnikov demanded to eliminate all defects within a week, and also to pay a penalty in the amount of 10% of the contract price for poor-quality work and compensation for moral damage in the amount of 50% of the contract price. Vetrov objected to the payment of a penalty and compensation for non-pecuniary damage, since the contract did not provide for such sanctions. Regarding the correction of the deficiencies found, he recommended addressing Klimov directly.
What decision should make the court?
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be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated.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.
No feedback yet