CHALLENGING THE LOAN AGREEMENT ON THE BASIS OF LOW-AMOUNT.

Developing the previous legal position in relation to the termination of the obligation by novation, the court of Cassation in civil case ԵԿԴ/0527/02/15 noted that innovation is an independent basis for termination of the obligation which is by agreement of both parties obligations and provides for other obligations, or another method of execution. In other words, despite the fact that in the case of existing novation the initial obligation is terminated, however, the mutual rights and obligations of the parties does not cease, because on the basis of the original obligation between them there is a new commitment. At the same time, innovation needs to occur between the same parties and must be different from the original obligation for another class or another method of execution. At the same time, the legislator has precisely defined the obligations for which innovation is not allowed, it is the obligation on compensation of harm caused to life or health and the payment of alimony.
In the case of innovations, as a confirmation of the transaction, is not required (or expected) transfer of money or property, but its conclusion requires that the parties mutually agreed to all essential terms of the transaction.
At the same time, the court of cassation stressed that the agreement can be considered an upgrade not only in the case if it is directly defined, but in case if it derives from the common will of the parties, which, in turn, be disclosed based on the rules of Treaty interpretation, taking into account the purpose of the Treaty.
In case of resumption of obligations, the transfer of property, including money, is not required, so the article 882 of the Civil code, about contest of the loan agreement on the basis of the impecuniousness not applicable for these situations.