An individual entrepreneur entered into a contract of carriage with MUE "Auto Farm".
In connection with the improper fulfillment of obligations under the contract, the entrepreneur sued the municipal unitary enterprise for the recovery of funds.
During the court hearing, the arbitration court found that MUE "Auto Farm" five months ago was reorganized into GUP "Avtokolonna No. 6". After establishing this circumstance, the arbitral tribunal replaced the improper party.
Did the arbitration court do the right thing?
What is the difference between the replacement of the inappropriate party from the entry into the successor process?
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be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2004-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
No feedback yet