Article 179. Invalidity of Transaction Concluded Under Influence of Fraud, Coercion, Threat, or Ill- Intentioned Agreement of Representative of One Party with Other Party or Coincidence of Grave Circumstances
1. A transaction concluded under the influence of fraud, coercion, threat, or ill-intentioned agreement between a representative of one party with the other party, as well as a transaction which a person was forced to conclude as a consequence of the coincidence of grave circumstances on conditions extremely disadvantageous for himself which the other party took advantage of (transaction on crushing terms) may be deemed by a court to be invalid upon the suit of the victim.
2. If the transaction was deemed invalid on one of the grounds specified in point 1 of this Article, then the other party shall return to the victim everything received by it under the transaction, and if it is impossible to return that received in kind, the value thereof shall be compensated in money. Property received under a transaction by the victim from the other party, as well as that due to it in compensation for what was transferred to the other party, shall go to the revenue of the Russian Federation. If it is impossible to transfer the property to the revenue of the Russian Federation in kind, the value thereof in money shall be recovered. In addition, the other party shall compensate the victim for real damage caused to it
Article 400. Limitation of the Scope of Liability by Obligations
1. By the individual kinds of obligations and by those obligations, which are related to a definite type of activity, the right to the full compensation of the losses may be limited by the law (the limited responsibility).
2. The agreement on limiting the scope of the debtor's responsibility by the contract of affiliation or by another kind of contract, in which the creditor is the citizen, coming out in the capacity of the consumer, shall be insignificant, if the scope of responsibility for the given kind of obligations or for the given violation has been defined by the law and if the agreement has been concluded before the setting in of the circumstances, entailing the responsibility for the non-discharge or for an improper discharge of the obligation.
Article 401. The Grounds of Responsibility for the Violation of the Obligation see also Remedies Termination
1. The person, who has not discharged the obligation or who has discharged it in an improper way, shall bear responsibility for this, if it has happened through his fault (an ill intention or carelessness on his part), with the exception of the cases, when the other grounds of the responsibility have been stipulated by the law or by the contract. The person shall be recognized as not guilty, if, taking into account the extent of the care and caution, which has been expected from him in the face of the nature and the terms of the circulation, he has taken all the necessary measures for properly discharging the obligation.
2. The absence of the guilt shall be proven by the person, who has violated the obligation.
3. Unless otherwise stipulated by the law or by the contract, the person, who has failed to discharge, or has discharged in an improper way, the obligation, while performing the business activity, shall bear responsibility, unless he proves that the proper discharge has been impossible because of a force-majeure, i.e., because of the extraordinary circumstances, which it was impossible to avert under the given conditions. To such kind of circumstances shall not be referred, in particular, the violations of obligations on the part of the debtor's counter-agents, or the absence on the market of commodities, indispensable for the discharge, or the absence of the necessary means at the debtor's disposal.
4. An agreement on eliminating or limiting the liability for an intentional violation of the obligation, concluded at an earlier date, shall be insignificant.
Article 428. Contract of Adhesion. See also Agreed Obligations
1. A contract of adhesion shall be deemed to be a contract whose conditions have been determined by one of the parties in model forms or other standard forms and which could be accepted by the other party not other than by means of adhering to the offered contract as a whole.
2. A party which has adhered to the contract shall have the right to demand dissolution or change of the contract if the contract of adhesion, although not contrary to a law or other legal acts, deprives this party of the rights usually granted under contracts of that type, excludes or restricts the responsibility of the other party for a violation of obligations, or contains other conditions clearly burdensome for the adhering party which it, proceeding form its own reasonably understood interests, would not have accepted, had it the opportunity to participate in determining the conditions of the contract.
3. When the circumstances provided for by point 3 of this Article are present, the demand concerning dissolution or change of the contract presented by a party which has adhered to the contract in connection with the effectuation of its entrepreneurial activity shall not be subject to satisfaction, if the adhering party know or should have know on what conditions it concluded the contract.