The courts found that at the time of the submission by the customer of the claim containing the notice of cancellation of the contract, the works under the contract were completed by the contractor, and no claims regarding their volume or quality were declared

The trial court denied both the initial and the counterclaim for failure to state the validity of the claims.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the counterclaim was justified and had incurred debt from the contracting company under the contract for performance of works. The court substantiated its position that the works were completed by the contractor and there were no claims regarding their volume or quality. The Supreme Court also agreed with this decision.

According to the decision of the Supreme court, the contracting of the works by the contractor and their acceptance by the customer is made out by an act signed by both parties. In case of refusal of one of the parties to sign the act, it is indicated in the act and it is signed by the other party. An act signed by one party may be declared invalid by the court only if the reasons for refusal of the other party to sign the act are justified by the court (Article 882 § 4 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).

Please note that the transfer and acceptance of works on the basis of an unilaterally signed act and the emergence of such an act of rights and obligations is possible if there is a real performance of works under the contract in the case of failure to obtain a justified refusal of reasons for non-acceptance of the works (identified deficiencies) within the period specified by the contract .

In its turn, the obligation to accept the completed works, and in the case of detecting defects of works to declare them immediately (including by reasoned refusal to sign the act of completed works)is entrusted  by law to the customer.

According to the SC, a customer who in violation of the requirements of Article 882 of the Civil Code of Ukraine unreasonably (unmotivated) refused to accept works without timely announcing their shortcomings (if there is any), is not exempted from the obligation to pay for the work.

In addition, in the instant case, the Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiff's appeal for a waiver of the contract due to the defendant's failure to complete the works and delivery of the equipment.

He reasoned his position with the fact that according to Article 849 (2) of the Civil Code of Ukraine, if the contractor did not start the work on time or perform it so slowly that its termination is clearly impossible, the customer has the right to withdraw from the contract and to claim expances.

The customer has the right at any time before the end of the work to withdraw from the contract by paying the contractor a fee for the performed part of the work and compensating him for the losses caused by the termination of the contract (Article 849, part 4 of this Code).

Therefore, the refusal of the customer from the contract of the contract, which is inherently a unilateral transaction, may be committed until the completion of the contractor works and indicating the relevant legal grounds (decision of 21.08.2019 in case № 917/1489/18).