Rezolut’s client is engaged in the lease of large retail premises. To assist him in obtaining a loan for the purchase of a new retail space, he used a loan broker services, with whom he concluded an agreement with a condition on the amount of remuneration – 10% of the loan amount after receiving it. Subsequently, the written contract with the loan broker was terminated because the seller refused to dispose of the property.
After some time, the principal nevertheless agreed to purchase real estate and again turned to the loan broker, they agreed on a fixed cost of services, immediately paid by the principal.
However, subsequently, the credit broker tried to unilaterally change the condition on the amount of remuneration and demanded that the client pay an additional 1.6 million rubles, and subsequently the remaining difference between the already paid and 10% of the approved loan amount. The client refused such terms of cooperation and was forced to independently perform a number of actions in order to obtain a loan.
The credit broker went to court with a demand to pay him a fee in the amount of 9.7 million rubles, calculating it as 10% percent of the amount of two loans allegedly approved by the client. Among the evidence presented by the credit broker, there was a certificate of acceptance of services rendered, allegedly signed by a Rezolut client. Also, in confirmation of the provision of services, the credit broker referred to the explanations of a third party involved in the case at his request.
The Rezolut team began to protect the client at the stage of litigation. By sending lawyers’ requests, satisfying the court’s petitions from Rezolut’s lawyers to demand documents, it was possible to collect the necessary evidence confirming the refusal of one bank to provide a loan, the lack of assistance from the broker in obtaining a loan from another bank, as well as the termination of the first written contract.
In addition, after the lawyers filed a petition for falsification of the act of acceptance of services submitted by the credit broker, the applicant independently excluded it from the evidence in the case, preventing the possibility of conducting an examination to verify the authenticity of the act.
The Arbitration Court of the Sverdlovsk Region agreed with the arguments of Rezolut’s lawyers that the services referred to by the loan broker were not actually provided to the client, the cost of the services actually rendered had already been paid, and the conclusion of the loan agreement took place only thanks to the actions of the Rezolut principal.
As a result, the claims to recover more than 9.7 million rubles from the client were denied.
The courts of appeal and cassation also agreed with the arguments of Rezolut’s lawyers about the groundlessness of the claims of the credit broker and left the decision of the court of first instance in force.