Conclusion of a Contract Made Under the Influence of Delusion
The procedure for issuing a dispute: judges
What can we say: party to the contract, іnsha person whose right has been violated
Vidpovidach: a party or a party to a right
When concluding an agreement, each of the parties must understand that after its conclusion, certain consequences occur for each of the parties to the agreement.
The legislation of Ukraine provides that if a party made a mistake and entered into the wrong agreement (deal) that it wanted, then such an agreement may be declared invalid in court.
An agreement concluded as a result of an error belongs to the category of transactions in which the inner will coincides with the will and is really aimed at achieving the goal of the transaction, but the formation of such a will occurred under the influence of circumstances that distorted the true will of the person. A mistake is a person's misperception of the actual circumstances that influenced her expression of will, in the absence of which it could be considered that the transaction would not have been completed. For a transaction to be invalidated as concluded under the influence of error, it is necessary that the error be significant. A material error is understood as a delusion regarding, in particular, the nature of the transaction, the rights and obligations of the parties.
According to part three of Article 203 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the expression of the will of the participant in the transaction must be free and correspond to his inner will.
If the person who made the transaction was mistaken about the circumstances that are of significant importance, such a transaction may be recognized by the court as invalid. A delusion about the nature of the transaction, the rights and obligations of the parties, such properties and qualities of a thing that significantly reduce its value or the possibility of using it for its intended purpose is essential. An error regarding the motives of the transaction is not significant, except in cases established by law (part one of Article 229 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
The circumstances, according to which the party to the transaction was mistaken, must exist exactly at the time of the transaction. A person, in confirmation of his claims to recognize the transaction as invalid, must prove that such an error really had and is of significant importance. A mistake as a result of one's own negligence, ignorance of the law or its incorrect interpretation by one of the parties cannot be the basis for invalidating the transaction.
A person, in support of his claims to recognize the transaction as invalid, must prove, on the basis of appropriate and admissible evidence, the existence of circumstances that indicate an error - her misperception of the actual circumstances of the transaction, which influenced her expression of will, and this error really was and is of significant importance.
The presence or absence of an error, that is, the plaintiff's misunderstanding of the actual circumstances of the transaction, which influenced the expression of the person's will when concluding a donation contract instead of a life contract, is determined by the court on the basis of the circumstances of a particular case established during the trial.
One example of evidence when a person mistakenly entered into a donation agreement instead of a life support agreement (which she really wanted to conclude):
The presence or absence of an error - the plaintiff's misunderstanding of the actual circumstances of the transaction, which influenced his expression of will when concluding a donation contract instead of a life contract, the court determines not only by the fact of the parties reading the text of the contested donation contract and the notary's explanation of the essence of the contract, but also under such circumstances, as: the age of the plaintiff, his state of health and the need for care and assistance in this regard; the plaintiff has the disputed housing as a single one; the absence of the actual transfer of the disputed immovable property under the contested agreement by the donor to the donee and the plaintiff's continuation to live in the disputed apartment after the conclusion of the donation agreement. Such an example is given in the ruling of the Supreme Court as part of the panel of judges of the First Court Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation dated October 30, 2019 in case No. 148/2386/16, a similar conclusion was noted by the Supreme Court on October 30, 2019 in case No. 368/357/17.
By contacting JSC Novakovskaya and Parntera, you can order the service: protection of the interests of a party in a dispute on recognizing the agreement as invalid. Ready to each side of the dispute.
