The Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber held that where a buyer has received the goods but failed to pay the purchase price, judicial termination of the sale agreement is not the proper remedy. The seller should instead claim the unpaid purchase price and interest for the use of another person’s funds.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine clarified that payment for goods is an advance payment where, under the contract, it must be made before ownership passes from the seller to the buyer. Failure to make that payment does not itself terminate the contract; the right arising from non-payment to terminate belongs to the seller.

The Supreme Court dismissed the buyer’s cassation appeal and confirmed that a seller may claim the outstanding advance payment even where ownership of the goods has not yet passed to the buyer, subject to consideration of the seller’s own reciprocal contractual obligations.

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of a transfer pricing assessment, finding that the tax authority lacked reliable comparable information for the CUP method and incorrectly compared forward contract prices using market prices at the date of delivery rather than the date the contracts were concluded.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine held that where imported goods are supplied under CFR (Incoterms 2010), freight costs to the named port of destination are already included in the invoice value and must not be added again when determining customs value.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court held that contractual provisions excluding or limiting a supplier’s liability for intentional breach are null and void under Ukrainian law. The Court also clarified the distinction between contractual damages and product liability and the limitation periods applicable to latent and apparent defects.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court held that a seller’s unilateral return of an advance payment does not necessarily terminate its obligation to supply the goods. The result depends significantly on the buyer’s response: acceptance without objection may terminate the parties’ obligations, while a prompt and unequivocal objection may preserve the buyer’s right to demand delivery.

The Supreme Court held that the decisive moment of an export operation, including the supply of goods, is the actual crossing of Ukraine’s customs border. The distinction between the customs declaration date and the physical export date can determine whether sanctions for violating foreign-currency settlement deadlines are lawful.

The Supreme Court held that a seller could not avoid delivering fully paid goods merely by relying on force majeure where it continued its business activities, the goods remained available in its warehouse and it had not notified the buyer of force majeure in accordance with the contract.

The Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions concerning occupied Crimea apply specifically to supplies of goods, works and services. Where privately owned property is moved for personal rather than commercial purposes, its movement cannot automatically be treated as a supply subject to those restrictions.