The Decree touches upon the issues related to the contract of redemption finance lease (or “leasing’), the execution of which by parties entails acquiring by the lessee of the right of ownership to the subject of lease upon the completion of lease payments. The principal clarifications are the following:
- as regards the consequences of the dissolution of leasing contract because of a delay in payments, the court must compare the mutual considerations of parties made prior to its termination (a balance of cross-obligations) and determine the final obligation of one party towards the other one in accordance with certain rules (which the Decree sets out in detail);
- although by virtue of the law the risk of seller’s failure to perform the contract of sale lies upon the party (lessee or lessor) which has chosen the seller, this does not exempt the other party of leasing contract from taking necessary measures in order to prevent the risks of such failure: for instance, if the seller was chosen by the lessee, but the lessor has deliberately or negligently contributed to the increase of the amount of losses, this may serve as a ground for reduction of liability of the lessee;
- if a lost or damaged object of lease was insured for the lessor, the latter must take reasonable steps to receive insurance premium. If he evades taking such steps, the lessee may demand the right to the insurance compensation to be ceded to him, and in case of refusal of the lessor he may cease making lease payments;
- as regards sublease contract: if lessor knew that lesser was merely a middleman and that he was expected to transfer the subject of lease to the ultimate lessee under sublease contract, then the risks of improper performance of obligations by the middleman are borne by the lessor; the ultimate lessee acquires the right of ownership to the object of lease even in the case when the lease payments made by him have not reached the lessor due to the fault of the middleman. All the same, such risks should not be placed upon the lessor if he proves that the first lessee and sublessee were acting in concert or were affiliated between themselves.
Besides, there are interpretations as regards a probable collision between the rights of pledge-holder and lessee, when the object of redemption leasing was concurrently under pledge.
Practical consequences: the Decree says that “for the sake of observing the principle of legal certainty and for the avoidance of violations of reasonable expectations of the participants of civil circulation” the given clarifications apply to the financial sublease contracts concluded after the date of Decree’s publication on the Supreme Commercial Court website (3 April 2014).
