The following conclusions of the Presidium are of primary importance:

 

- in the event that the delusion about the personality of the other party has important significance, it may serve as a ground for deeming the transaction to be invalid as being made under the influence of delusion; the delusion about the qualities of the counterparty (for instance, about the importing company’s having an exclusive license to import) may also fall within this category (para 1);

 

- wrong opinion of a party to a transaction about the legal consequences of such transaction and the rights and duties ensuing therefrom may not be regarded as an essential delusion about the nature of the transaction (para 3);

 

- if, apart from deeming a transaction to be invalid, there are other legal remedies available to the plaintiff, such circumstance does not preclude the deeming of transaction to be invalid, if the grounds provided for by Arts 178 and 179 are present (para 6);

 

- not every fraud may entail the invalidity of a transaction, but only such a fraud which has a causal link with the decision of the victim of fraud to enter into the transaction in question (para 9);

 

- the notion of “transactions made under the influence of malicious agreement of the representative of one party with the other party”, may embrace the transactions made by a board or an official of legal entity on behalf of the latter (para 10);

 

- an official refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the civil defendant does not necessarily entail the presumption that on his part there was no coercion to conclude a transaction; the use of force may be confirmed not solely by the fact of there being criminal proceedings with regard to the defendant (para 12);