- Arts & Culture 5939
- Business & Economics 689
- Computers 310
- Dictionaries & Encyclopedias 81
- Education & Science 71768
- Abstracts 252
- Astrology 4
- Astronomy 1
- Biology 8
- Chemistry 2021
- Coursework 15546
- Culture 9
- Diplomas 411
- Drawings 574
- Ecology 6
- Economy 83
- English 75
- Ethics, Aesthetics 3
- For Education Students 14480
- Foreign Languages 11
- Geography 3
- Geology 1
- History 89
- Maps & Atlases 5
- Mathematics 13856
- Musical Literature 2
- Pedagogics 19
- Philosophy 23
- Physics 14191
- Political Science 5
- Practical Work 101
- Psychology 60
- Religion 4
- Russian and culture of speech 8
- School Textbooks 7
- Sexology 42
- Sociology 9
- Summaries, Cribs 87
- Test Answers 150
- Tests 9129
- Textbooks for Colleges and Universities 32
- Theses 24
- To Help Graduate Students 14
- To Help the Entrant 36
- Vetting 364
- Works 13
- Информатика 10
- Engineering 3058
- Fiction 696
- House, Family & Entertainment 107
- Law 132
- Website Promotion 71
In 1993, the Krylov family received ownership
Refunds: 0
Uploaded: 29.10.2019
Content: S19-223.docx 19,2 kB
Product description
In 1993, the Krylov family received ownership of land for the construction of a summer cottage complex of four houses in the village of Baranovo, Novgorod Region. In the same 1993 they began the preparation of the territory, construction work, and the construction of an access road. 45 thousand rubles were spent on all these works.
In February 1994, according to the decree of the administration of the Novgorod region, the land plots were seized and provided to ROAO High-Speed Railways (ROAO VSM), which carries out the design and expert work necessary for the construction of the high-speed railway St. Petersburg - Moscow. The head of the family filed a complaint with the administration, after which the RCM “SCM” undertook to indemnify in full.
However, without waiting for damages, the Krylov family in late 1998 appealed to the Novgorod District Court to recover damages associated with the seizure of land. The statement of claim was enclosed with the resolution of the district administration, documents confirming the facts of the costs incurred, and, in addition, the letter of the RCJSC “SCM”, in which the defendant confirmed his obligations regarding compensation for losses and proposed to conclude an agreement on compensation for losses and lost profits after certain works that were planned for the 2-3 quarter of 1994. But, since the work did not begin, the contract was not concluded.
The defendant did not recognize the lawsuit in court, citing the fact that the contract proposed in the letter did not take place due to the fault of the Krylovs themselves, and therefore the amount of compensation was not determined, and the terms of the administration did not indicate the terms for damages. In addition, according to the defendant, the plaintiff missed the limitation period.
Solve the case.
Additional information
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2009-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
Feedback
0Period | |||
1 month | 3 months | 12 months | |
0 | 0 | 0 | |
0 | 0 | 0 |