The state customer collected the difference between the price of the winner and the cost of the contract with the second participant
The winner did not sign the contract on time. Since he was found to have evaded, the customer concluded a contract with the second participant at a higher price.
The customer demanded that the winner compensate for losses in the form of the difference between his price and the value of the contract with the second participant. The claim remained unanswered.
The courts supported the customer:
the fact of evasion from the conclusion of the contract is confirmed;
the contract with the second participant was concluded on less favorable terms due to the unfair behavior of the winner. The causal relationship between such behavior and losses has been proven;
the argument that the customer could have made a repeat purchase is untenable. The customer did not commit any illegal actions when concluding a contract with the second participant. Such a right is established in Law No. 44-FZ.
In practice, there is an example when the customer was refused to recover damages. Intentional evasion from the conclusion of the contract has not been proven. There was no need to make a transaction with the second participant, since according to the Law N 44-FZ this is only the right of the customer. He could have made a repeat purchase.
Document:
Resolution of the AC of the West Siberian District of 15.07.2021 in the case N A45-27892/2020