Silent means consent? “Silence should not be the deciding factor in such serious decisions.

One of the subtle and relatively mild changes (if compared, for example, with the idea of e-justice embodied in the law) concerns the clarification of the circle of circumstances that do not need to be proven. Article 70 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented by part 3.1 of the following content: “... the circumstances to which a party refers in support of its claims or objections are considered recognized by the other party, unless they are directly disputed by it or disagreement with such circumstances does not follow from other evidence substantiating the submitted objections regarding the essence of the stated requirements”.

Until now, the requirements for a party to acknowledge the facts referred to by the other party have been rather formalized. The confession was recorded in the minutes of the court session and certified by the signatures of the parties; the confession, set out in writing, was attached to the case file (paragraph 2, part 3, article 70 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In other words, in all cases, a completely unambiguous expression of the will of the party to recognize certain circumstances of the case was required.

Moreover, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in information letter dated December 22, 2005 No. 99 “On Certain Issues of the Practice of Application of the Arbitration Procedure Code Russian Federation» to the question of whether the party, after signing the agreement on the recognition of circumstances and their acceptance by the arbitration court, has the right to refuse to recognize these circumstances, explained the following. The parties or one of the parties are not deprived of the opportunity at the court session, in which the evidence in the case is being examined, to inform the court (before the presiding judge in the arbitration court of the first instance declares the consideration of the case on the merits completed) that the agreement on recognizing the circumstances is erroneous.

Thus, if earlier recognition was based on the active will of the party, now recognition is possible as a result of the statement by the arbitration court of the party's tacit recognition of the circumstances of the case.

Recognition-silence and recognition-inaction

According to Law No. 228-FZ, non-disputing the circumstances cited by the other party (“confession-silence”) and failure to present evidence from which the party disagrees with the asserted circumstances (“confession-inaction”) have become new ways of recognition.

The innovation makes the regime of facts established by the arbitration court and included in the subject of proof in the case very unambiguous: either this fact is directly disputed by the party, or it is recognized by the party. There are no intermediate states.

On the one hand, the discussed changes retain continuity in relation to the previous large-scale amendments to the APC of the Russian Federation by the Federal Law of July 19, 2009 No. 205-FZ (for a more detailed commentary, see: Yudin A.V. Expanding the grounds for applying procedural liability measures and other procedural coercive measures in arbitration Commentary on the Federal Law of July 19, 2009 No. 205-FZ “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, 2009, No. 10, pp. 86–99). We are talking, in particular, about changes that oblige the defendant to submit a response indicating objections regarding the requirements brought against him for each argument contained in the statement of claim (part 1 of article 131 of the APC of the Russian Federation).

On the other hand, the pro-claimant and radical nature of the demonstrated approach cannot but attract attention, which, although it fits into the concept of the entire Law, made in the spirit of strengthening the adversarial beginnings of the process, can lead to a derogation of the rights of the party. It is worth considering other circumstances, which we will outline below.

Firstly, the pro-claimant orientation of the norm, Part 3, Art. 70.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is expressed in the fact that the application of the rules on recognition in the form of silence and (or) failure to present evidence is possible only in relation to the defendant, but not to the plaintiff, whose silence or failure to provide evidence cannot be interpreted as a confession, since in the novel under discussion we are talking about the failure to provide evidence “substantiating the objections presented regarding the essence of the stated requirements” (highlighted by me. - A. Yu.). Of course, only the defendant or the plaintiff in a counterclaim brought against him can raise objections to the stated requirements.

In this situation, the mention of “side” and “sides” in the hypothesis and disposition of the norm is discordant with its ending, where it refers to “stated requirements”. We believe that there is no reason to limit the application of this rule to the figure of the defendant.

Secondly, the radical nature of the norm is expressed in the fact that the introduced rules update and repeatedly increase the semantic load of the provision on the risk of consequences in the commission or non-commission of certain procedural actions (part 2 of article 9 of the APC of the Russian Federation). Indeed, non-contestation of the circumstances of the case, placed by the legislator under the regime of recognizing such circumstances, is a manifestation of the adverse consequences of non-compliance with procedural actions in the form of objections and the presentation of evidence.

However, the Law obliges the arbitration court each time to explain to the party the consequences of the commission or non-commission of procedural actions (part 3, article 9 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). We believe that the case we are considering not only does not act as an exception to the rule, but requires a special indication of the obligation of the arbitration court to explain to the party that its silence regarding the circumstances of the case, alleged by the opponent, will be regarded as their recognition. If we proceed from the fact that in the arbitration court there is no need to explain to the party the consequences of its silence, that is, the silence of the party should be followed by the silence of the arbitration court with subsequent conclusions unexpected for the party, then the arbitration court will not be perceived as an ally of the parties, obliged to create conditions for their implementation of their procedural rights, but as a certain subject who wants to "catch" the party, take advantage of its mistake, etc.

The objective need to focus the attention of the party on such a duty has negative consequence that the arbitral tribunal may inadvertently provoke an unnecessary dispute about the circumstances of the case, in respect of which the party might prefer to remain silent. Such procedural behavior is quite understandable from the psychological side: if my silence is interpreted as a confession, I will argue, even without serious arguments against the fact asserted by my opponent, so that my inaction does not harm me myself.

Third, equating silence with confession can give rise in higher courts to disputes not dictated by objective necessity about whether the evidence presented by the party implies disagreement with the facts asserted by the other party, etc. As a result, the dispute will be reduced not to establishing the circumstances of the case, but to interpreting the evidence presented by the party evidence and commenting on her objections as to whether an objection to the facts follows from them or whether there has been silence.

Communication of the novel with the agro-industrial complex of the Russian Federation

Fourth, the norms on “recognition-silence” and “recognition-inaction” are weakly linked to the provisions already existing in the APC of the Russian Federation related to various structural parts of the Code:

1. Based on Part 4 of Art. 268 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation "the circumstances of the case, which are recognized, certified by the persons participating in the case, in the manner prescribed by Article 70 of this Code, and accepted by the arbitration court of first instance, are not verified by the arbitration court of appeal." It turns out that if the arbitration court of the first instance in the decision stated the recognition by the party of the circumstances of the case by silence and the party does not agree with this approach, then bringing the appropriate argument in the court of the second instance runs into a direct legislative restriction for the appellate court to verify these facts.

2. The weak linkage of the new norms is also manifested in the procedural fixation and statement of recognition by the party of the circumstances of the case. Such a statement is only possible in judgment, and the party learns about its inaction only after reading the reasoning of the judicial act. General rules on recognition by filing an application and certificate this fact in the protocol of the court session in this case cannot be applied.

3. Known difficulties are generated by the correlation of the novel under discussion with the norm of Part 1 of Art. 156 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which "failure to submit a response to the statement of claim or additional evidence that the arbitration court proposed to submit to the persons participating in the case is not an obstacle to the consideration of the case based on the evidence in the case."

The consideration of the case on the basis of the available evidence is not the same as the recognition by the party of the facts that it has not disputed in the response, and the facts, the refutation of which does not follow from the evidence presented by the party. The main difference is that the consideration of the case on the basis of available evidence does not at all predetermine the outcome of the process, since the “available evidence” may be sufficient to make a decision in favor of the party that no longer provides any evidence. Recognition of the facts asserted by the opposite side no longer has a neutral character and is capable of putting the side that recognized them to the brink of defeat.

Results

Thus, the provision of Art. 156 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be linked to the norm of Part 3.1 of Art. 70 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and supplemented by an indication that the failure to provide a response and additional evidence does not prevent the consideration of the case on the basis of the available evidence and does not prevent the arbitration court from considering the facts asserted by the other party as recognized.

The adversarial nature of the arbitration process has a significant potential that has not yet been fully realized by the legislator, as evidenced by the emergence of a new and, in a sense, bold rule on the recognition of facts in the form of silence or their direct non-contestation. However, in order to improve its wording, it is necessary to extend the rule to both parties to the arbitration process, including the plaintiff. In addition, it is necessary to link the norm with the provisions of the existing arbitration procedural legislation. Note that the arbitration court must each time warn the parties about the possibility of applying the provisions provided for in this novel, including by indicating this in the rulings issued during the preparation of the case and the trial.

The Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank will automatically connect the Russians to new system individual pension capital

website, Alexey Belkin

According to the media, a mechanism has been determined for connecting citizens to a new accumulative pension system individual pension capital (IPK). In fact, the principle "silence is a sign of consent" is used.

This idea is in line with Article 158 of the Civil Code, which states that "silence is recognized as an expression of the will to make a deal in cases provided for by law or by agreement of the parties."

At the same time, automatic connection to the PKI under Article 158 does not exclude its further cancellation at the request of the person by submitting an appropriate application to cancel the automatic subscription.

Yet some analysts have criticized this approach. What surprises will the pension reform bring?

We decided to find out if there could be potential problems as a result of using this mechanism and turned to a number of experts for comment.

Manager's opinion legal service Central Committee of the Communist Party Vadim Solovyov:

- What do you think about the proposed mechanism for connecting individual pension capital to the new funded pension system?

One should proceed from the interests of a person, and if he did not specifically express his will, then, in my opinion, silence should not be decisive factor determining such serious decisions. Willy-nilly, a person may find himself in a situation where, because of this wording, his constitutional rights may be violated.

I would move away from this formula, given the severity of the legal consequences that follow this step. Here only written consent is required.

- And what do you personally see as a potential threat to the interests of a citizen?

A person may not even suspect that by his silence he agreed to use his pension capital. Question: how conscientiously they will be used by various banks and funds?

- The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is somehow going to react to the fact that such a mechanism has been chosen, will any statements follow?

We have always opposed the solution of pension issues through default. We will once again carefully consider this situation, and I do not rule out that we will make certain statements on this extremely serious issue.

State Duma deputy's opinion Nikolay Arefiev:

- What is the novelty of the proposed method?

As a matter of fact, it was like that before. Who was silent, the funded pension went through an authorized bank. And who did not keep silent, he could conclude an agreement with any other bank or company.

And now, if you have not chosen a bank yourself, then the state will attach you to a bank authorized by the state. If you don't want to, you can refuse and go to another bank.

- So you think that there are no problems here?

I see the problem elsewhere. In my opinion, perhaps the situation will come to the point where there will be no pension other than a funded one. It's like putting money in a passbook all my life, and at the age of 65 I uncorked the egg-cup and took a fixed amount.

But now the funded pension has been frozen for several years, and pensioners are not given it.

Opinion of the President of the International Confederation of Consumer Societies Dmitry Yanin:

- Is the principle “silence is a sign of consent” good in the issue of pension provision?

Such a mechanism for connecting citizens to, in fact, the system of additional fees is quite drastic. In conditions when over the past five years the state has frozen, withdrawn more than a trillion rubles from savings accounts, it is simply wrong to initiate such programs.

- In your opinion, how will society perceive the latest innovations in the pension sector?

I am afraid that this will be perceived by people as an additional tax, with the risk of future withdrawal of what is now automatically deducted from your income. There is no trust in the initiatives of the state in terms of pensions. The first step is to restore trust.

First you need to return payments to savings accounts for the last five years and only then enter some new model deductions.

The expression goes back to Sophocles, in whose tragedy "The Trachinian Women" it is said:

Do you not understand that by silence you agree with the accuser?

Citation examples

- ... let me donate at least a little to the common cause ... Accepted?
Nejdanov did not answer.
-... Silence is a sign of consent. Thank you!

Olga,” he said, kneeling before her, “be my wife!”
She remained silent, turning away from him...
"Silence?" he said anxiously and inquiringly, kissing her hand.
- A sign of consent! she said softly, still not looking at him.

Links

Expression in the "Encyclopedic Dictionary of Winged Words and Expressions"

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Silence is a sign of consent" in other dictionaries:

Silence will not be right. Wed I take your silence as a sign of consent ... So, you are planning to be my bride? Turgenev. Unhappy. 17. Wed. Let me donate just a little to the cause. Accepted? Silence is a sign of consent! Thank you!… … Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary

From Latin: Silentium videtur confessio (silentium videtur confessio |. From the message of Pope Boniface VIII (1294 1303), which was included in canon law (a set of regulations supreme power in Roman catholic church). Possible… …

Silent means consent. See REQUEST CONSENT DISCLAIMER... IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people

The expression of the Pope (1294 1303) Boniface VIII in one of his messages included in canon law (a set of decrees of church authority). This expression goes back to Sophocles (496 406 BC), in the tragedy of which the Trachinian woman says: Is ... Dictionary of winged words and expressions

Silence is a sign of agreement. You will not be right in silence. Wed I take your silence as a sign of consent ... So, you are planning to be my bride? Turgenev. Unhappy. 17. Wed. Let me donate at least a little to the common cause. Accepted? Silence… … Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Silent means consent- wing. sl. The expression of the Pope (1294 1303) Boniface VIII in one of his messages included in canon law (a set of decrees of church authority). This expression goes back to Sophocles (496 406 BC), in whose tragedy “Trachinian Women” ... ... Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

- “Silence is a sign of consent” (lat. Silentium videtur confessio) is an expression of the Pope Boniface VIII in one of the messages included in canon law. The expression goes back to Sophocles, in whose tragedy “The Trachinian Women” it is said: Is it ... ... Wikipedia

SILENCE, silence, pl. no, cf. Action under ch. be silent; the state of a silent person. The silence of the interlocutor began to disturb me. “In silence, leaning his hand on the saddle, he dismounts from the horse, sullen.” Pushkin. He passed over this question in silence. Dictionary Ushakov

SIGN, sign, husband. 1. A sign, a sign by which something is recognized, recognized. The child was recognized by a sign on his left shoulder. “And in the bath, you can hear (Pugachev) showed his royal signs on his chest.” Pushkin. || Clemency, label. Customs sign. ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

A, m. 1. An object, image, label, etc., serving to designate what l., indicating what l. Identification marks. □ Finally, the foremen appeared: a koshevoi with a club in his hand, a sign of his dignity, a judge with a military seal. Gogol, ... ... Small Academic Dictionary

Silent means consent

Silent means consent
From Latin: Silentium videtur confessio (silentium videtur confessio |.
From the message of Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), which was included in canon law (a set of decisions of the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church).
A possible primary source of this expression is the tragedy “The Fucking Woman” by the ancient Greek poet-dramatist Sophocles (496-406 BC): “Don’t you understand that by silence you agree with the accuser?”
Usage: Literally.

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: "Lokid-Press". Vadim Serov. 2003 .

See what "Silence is a sign of consent" in other dictionaries:

Silent means consent. See REQUEST CONSENT DISCLAIMER... IN AND. Dal. Proverbs of the Russian people

SILENCE IS NOT A SIGN OF CONSENT AT ALL

A. BYCHKOV

In civil law, silence can be regarded as consent to a transaction or an expression of intention to complete it, as well as an acceptance only in cases expressly provided for by law or by agreement of the parties. Let us consider when the silence of the participants in civil circulation is legally significant, and when it is legally indifferent.

Silence with legal consequences

In the current civil legislation of the Russian Federation, you can find a number of provisions on silence. Silence is not considered consent to the transaction, with the exception of cases established by law (clause 4, article 157.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Silence can be recognized as an expression of will to conclude a transaction only in cases provided for by law or by agreement of the parties (Clause 3, Article 158 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Such regulation is due to the fact that the wide giving of legal significance to silence is undesirable, since this could lead to uncertainty in property turnover and the emergence of disputes and conflict situations.
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes a number of cases when silence is regarded as consent to a transaction or an expression of will to complete it:
- extension of the energy supply agreement for the same period and on the same terms, if neither party refuses it before the expiration of its validity period (clause 2 of article 540 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), trust management agreement (clause 2 of article 1016 of the Civil Code RF) and other agreements with the condition of automatic prolongation;
- renewal of the lease agreement for an indefinite period, if the tenant continues to use the property at the end of its term in the absence of objections from the landlord (clause 2, article 621 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
- extension of the bank deposit agreement on demand, if the depositor did not wish to withdraw or re-register it (clause 4, article 837 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
- acceptance by the buyer without objection of goods that do not correspond to the agreed assortment under the contract of sale (clause 4, article 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
- non-declaration by the committent of objections about the inflated purchase price to the commission agent (clause 3 of article 995 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), etc.
In addition to the cases established by law, silence can be considered consent to the transaction or an expression of will to complete it, provided that such a possibility is expressly provided for by the agreement of the parties.
For example, a master loan agreement signed between the parties may contain a condition that the borrower's applications are submitted by him under e-mail or in personal account registered on the lender's website, and the lender subsequently transfers to him cash. In the purpose of payment, the lender lays down all the essential terms of the loan agreement (amount, term, interest rate, penalty for violation of the repayment period, etc.), and also makes a reference to the loan agreement.
In this situation, if the borrower does not return the amount of money credited to his bank account to the lender, starts spending it, it is considered that he accepted the terms of the loan obligation and bound himself to them. In this case, his tacit consent to receive funds indicates agreement with the conclusion of a loan agreement on certain conditions. In addition to silence, the intention to make a deal in the above example is also confirmed by the implicit actions of the borrower: accepting money without objection, spending it on their own needs.
Silence as a form of expressing the intention to make a transaction is widespread in the sphere of rendering services by telecom operators to their subscribers. They publish the terms of cooperation on their websites with subscribers joining them by signing application forms, which indicate their agreement with possible changes, additions and clarifications of the rules published on the operator's website. Meanwhile in judicial practice The freedom of discretion of telecom operators is significantly limited in a situation where their counterparty is a consumer ordering telecom services for their personal needs.
Thus, the connection by the telecom operator of consumers to an additional service and the further collection of fees for it until the moment the consumer refuses it, are not agreed with consumers, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 3 of Art. 16 of the Law of 07.02.1992 N 2300-1 "On Protection of Consumer Rights", since the subscriber's silence as a way of expressing will, on the contrary, means general rule refusal of a person to complete a transaction. At the same time, only in cases expressly provided for by law or by agreement of the parties, silence is recognized as an expression of the will of a person to conclude a transaction (Resolution of the FAS UO dated 10.24.2011 N F09-6624 / 11).
Therefore, the subscriber's consent to connect him to additional paid services must be direct and unambiguous, for example, brought to the attention of the telecom operator by sending an SMS message. It is unacceptable to include in the terms of the contract with a consumer subscriber a provision that a paid service is provided to him until he himself refuses it, since in this case it is considered imposed.
The tacit consent to the transaction will be the condition fixed in any fixed-term contract for automatic prolongation for a new term on the same or modified terms, payment for goods, works and services at modified tariffs that differ from the originally agreed prices, acceptance without comment of more goods than this was agreed in the supply contract, non-objection by the customer regarding the fact, volume, quality and timing of the work, reflected in the act sent to him by mail by the customer, etc.

Better keep silent

If neither the law nor the agreement of the parties provides that silence is regarded as consent to the transaction or an expression of intention to complete it, it does not entail any legal consequences.
In particular, the failure of the creditor to present claims to the debtor for a long time regarding unfulfilled obligations does not in itself indicate a waiver of the relevant requirements (Resolution AC DO of February 12, 2015 N F03-252 / 2015), as well as the failure to take measures to challenge transactions made with exceeding the powers enshrined in the charter, power of attorney or other document (Appeal ruling of the Omsk Regional Court dated October 23, 2013 in case N 33-7044 / 13). At the same time, the refusal of citizens and legal entities from the exercise of their rights does not entail the termination of these rights, with the exception of cases provided for by law (clause 2, article 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
The failure of the creditor to present claims to the debtor for unfulfilled or violated obligations, as well as the failure to take measures to challenge the transactions made in a specific period of time, does not in itself indicate that in the first case the debtor has been forgiven, and in the second - the transaction has been approved. In these cases, the silence of the authorized persons cannot be considered as consent to the transaction or an expression of intention to complete it.
Sending a draft contract for consideration in the absence of information about whether it was accepted by the counterparty or not cannot be considered as tacit agreement with its terms and expression of will to conclude it, since the silence of the counterparty may in this case indicate his unwillingness to conclude an agreement (Definition Leningrad Regional Court of March 12, 2014 N 33-1106 / 2014, Cassation ruling of the Penza Regional Court of February 6, 2007 in case N 33-216).
The same applies to silence regarding the proposal to change or terminate the concluded agreement (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 12, 2013 N 18-KG12-90, FAS PO Resolution of May 5, 2009 in case N A57-6018 / 2008), to failure to send a response for a claim indicating the size and circumstances of the occurrence of receivables (decision of the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region dated January 21, 2010 in case No. A55-31189 / 2009).
It cannot be considered as an agreement to conclude a transaction by a long silence (for example, 3 months or more) of the party that received the draft agreement, and its subsequent submission of a protocol of disagreements, since in this case, in addition to the fact that silence does not indicate consent to conclude a transaction, the normally necessary for acceptance expires offer term (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow Region of October 11, 2012 in case N A40-12131 / 12-120-113).
Leaving unanswered the tenant's requests to conclude a sublease agreement, to reorganize the premises or to expand the types of permitted commercial use of the premises cannot be considered as consent of the landlord to the transaction, since in any such cases leaving the application without consideration is legally significant behavior, which consists in ignoring of the received appeal, in the absence of not only agreement with the proposed transaction, but also the desire to consider it and discuss the conditions presented in it.
The silence of the creditor regarding the agreement concluded between his debtor and a third party on the transfer of debt during the actual execution of this transaction and the transfer by the third party in favor of the creditor of the funds due to him from the debtor does not confirm his consent to the transfer of the debt, if he has not expressed his consent in any other active way. approval for the said transaction.
By virtue of Art. 391 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the transfer by the debtor of his debt to another person is allowed only with the consent of the creditor, while it must be direct and unconditional. Therefore, if the creditor did not sign a debt transfer agreement concluded between the debtor and a third party, did not conclude independent agreements with them, did not express his consent to such a transaction in correspondence or by performing implicit actions, by law or by agreement of the parties, the silence of the creditor as consent to the transaction in question is not provided for, the transfer of the debt is not considered to have taken place (the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District of March 23, 2013 in case N A81-5190 / 2012).

For its weight in gold

Silence is not an acceptance, unless otherwise follows from the law, agreement of the parties, custom or from previous business relations of the parties (Article 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
If one of the participants in civil circulation sends a proposal to the other to conclude an agreement (offer), then only acceptance or the performance of conclusive actions, but not the silence of the counterparty, who will leave the offer sent to him without consideration, will be the consent to its conclusion. In such a situation, the contract between them is not considered concluded, unless the offeror has the right to compel the counterparty to conclude an agreement that is binding for that (for example, a public contract).
For example, connecting a borrower to an insurance program must be voluntary, so the bank is not entitled to impose on borrowers the conclusion of a voluntary insurance contract, as well as condition the receipt of a loan by ordering such an additional service.
In this regard, it will not be considered the borrower's consent to connect him to the voluntary insurance program if, when filling out an application for a loan, he did not tick the box in the application form to refuse this service, because, firstly, an application for a loan is not acceptance, but by sending an offer to the bank (an offer to conclude a loan agreement on certain conditions), and secondly, the absence of a checkmark in the application column does not in itself indicate the client’s consent to connect him to the insurance protection program (Appeal ruling of the Kurgan Regional Court dated 09/30/2014 in case N 33-2915/2014).
The bank should also notify the borrower of the opening of the account and the crediting of credit funds to it, since the silence of the client may simply be due to ignorance that the bank has expressed its willingness to provide services to him.
When concluding a loan agreement by receiving a signed application from a client for a loan on certain conditions, the bank must inform the bank about the crediting of credit funds to the account opened by the client by SMS, e-mail, facsimile or other available method, which is indicated in the application on the issuance of a loan indicating the relevant numbers and addresses, because otherwise, without informing the client, the loan agreement between him and the bank is not considered concluded, because the client, as the person who sent the offer, did not receive its acceptance from the bank (Appeal ruling of the Voronezh Regional Court dated 15.05. 2014 N 33-2413/2014).
In addition, in such a situation, the bank is deprived of the opportunity to use credit funds credited to the client’s account, will not be able to provide them to other clients, and will also collect interest from the client for using the loan if he did not activate the card and did not withdraw funds from the account.
It cannot be considered the consent of a citizen (acceptance) with the use of his image by another person, if he did not express his consent directly and unambiguously. His silent behavior and failure to take measures to protect his rights cannot be considered as an acceptance in the absence of evidence of bringing to his attention information about the nature, purpose, time and extent of use of his image (Appeal ruling of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court dated 06/18/2013 in case N 33-5274 ).
Silence will not have any legal consequences in the case when a clear and unambiguous expression of the will of a participant in civil circulation is required by law or other regulatory legal act to complete a particular transaction.
So, in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 04.07.1991 N 1541-1 "On the privatization of the housing stock in the Russian Federation" the will to participate in privatization or refusal to do so must be unambiguously expressed by the person entitled to participate in privatization. The silence of one of the persons living in the apartment on the proposal of others to participate in privatization or to refuse to participate in it does not indicate that they have expressed the corresponding will, moreover, compulsion to express the will to privatization or refusal to privatize it is unacceptable (Determination of the Moscow City Court of 03.07 .2014 N 4g/8-6509).

Our company provides assistance in writing term papers and theses, as well as master's theses in the subject Civil law We invite you to use our services. All work is guaranteed.

$mob_info$