The performance from year to year

Objective

The client and the state-controlled operator have reached a preliminary agreement, whereby the parties intended to conclude the main contract allowing the state-controlled operator access to the client’s LTE network. However, the main contract was not signed during the statutory period and the client announced an open tender for access to its network. The state-controlled operator did not wish to participate in the tender and insisted on the preliminary agreement in order to force the LTE network to enter into the main contract without participating in the tender, which called for different conditions. The client insisted that its LTE network shall be utilized by operators on the same conditions, without any unreasonable preferences being made to individual operators. Our task was to prevent the state-controlled operator from receiving network usage preferences, which were unreasonable and unfavorable to our client. 

Resolution

Our team carefully evaluated the available evidence and carried out an in-depth interpretation of the legal doctrine regarding the preliminary contract. The court agreed with the arguments presented by us and continued to form the practice regarding the conclusion of main contracts based on preliminary contracts. The court made a number of important doctrinal conclusions about the nature of the preliminary contract and the obligations arising from it. 

Result

Our client successfully defended its right to grant access to its LTE network on favorable terms, which are identical for all operators. The judicial acts containing our proposed doctrinal interpretation of the nature of the preliminary contract will in turn have a positive impact on the process of concluding such transactions.