A Kaliningrad resident bought a car in February after signing a sales contract with an official dealer center. The buyer paid the full amount upfront, but the dealer did not deliver the vehicle within the period specified in the contract and demanded an additional 50 percent payment, according to the Kaliningrad region press service of Russia’s UFSSP.
The price increase was attributed to economic difficulties. Officials noted that these cars had been taken off sale due to a lack of spare parts and an inability to meet warranty obligations for future repairs. The situation put the buyer in a challenging position, caught between a binding agreement and circumstances outside anyone’s control.
The case proceeded to court, where it was established that the car had already been delivered to Kaliningrad in January—before the plaintiff’s contract existed—at the old price. The dealer failed to present evidence of ongoing economic hardship that would justify pulling the model from sale, nor any force majeure event that would excuse the performance of the contract. The judge found no legal basis for the dealer to withhold the vehicle or to demand extra payment once the contract had been formed.
As a result, the court ordered the debtor association to transfer ownership of the car to the buyer and awarded the buyer damages for non-material harm, along with a financial penalty amounting to 397.5 thousand rubles. The decision was recorded with the Bailiff’s Department for Special Enforcement Procedures of the Federal Bailiff Service in the Kaliningrad Region.
Following the court ruling, bailiffs visited the dealer’s address to present the demand for voluntary compliance. They warned that failure to surrender the car within the stated deadlines would trigger coercive measures, including the seizure of property and the freezing of funds in accounts. The dealer’s management chose to cooperate and publicly handed over the vehicle to the buyer while also transferring the ordered sum of 397.5 thousand rubles.
In the end, the plaintiff’s rights were fully restored. The case underscored the importance of timely delivery under a signed contract and highlighted how a lack of spare parts or post-sale support cannot be used to justify withholding an item of sale from a buyer once the agreement has been executed. It also demonstrated how court actions and enforcement procedures can secure restitution for consumers when a seller fails to perform as agreed, even amid broader market disruptions. [Source: UFSSP Kaliningrad region report and court records attribution].
This outcome serves as a reminder to buyers and sellers alike that contract terms bind parties regardless of subsequent market pressures. The judgment reinforces the principle that delivery should align with the agreed schedule, and it confirms that a buyer retains legitimate recourse when a seller attempts to alter obligations through new demands or unexpected price adjustments after the contract is signed. The decision further illustrates the role of enforceable court orders in ensuring compliance and protecting consumer rights in the Kaliningrad region and beyond. [Citation: regional legal authorities and enforcement agencies].