In judicial practice, recognition of a transaction as invalid is fairly common. Art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes a number of conditions, in the presence of which the agreement between the entities can be challenged. We consider them further in detail. 
Invalidity of a transaction completed under the influence of a material error
The agreement may be challenged at the suit of one of the parties on specific grounds. One of them is misconception, which is essential for the applicant. Moreover, it should be such that, with a reasonable and objective assessment of the situation, the plaintiff would not agree to the impugned agreement if he knew about the real situation.
Specificity
Delusion will be considered material if a number of conditions are met. They are indicated in part 2 of this article. In particular, contesting an agreement is permitted if a party:
- I made obvious mistakes, typos in the contract or reservations.
- It has no real idea of the subject matter of the agreement. In this case, we are talking about such properties that are considered significant in circulation.
- Mistaken regarding the nature of the transaction.
- It does not have a real idea of the subject with which it enters into legal relations, or which is associated with them.
- It is mistaken about the circumstances that are mentioned in the will of the party, or from which the person proceeds when concluding an agreement.
Exceptions
The lack of a real understanding of the motive for concluding an agreement does not serve as the basis on which a transaction may be declared invalid. Art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation also provides for the right of a party to agree to maintain the legal force of the agreement on the terms of which the subject was ignorant. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, indicates these circumstances in the decision. A transaction cannot be declared invalid if the error was such that it could not be recognized by an entity acting with ordinary discretion, taking into account the accompanying factors, the characteristics of the participants and the content of the agreement.
Indemnification
Part 6 of this article defines the consequences of the invalidity of transactions. When satisfying the claim, the provisions of Article 167 of the Code. The entity, at the request of which the transaction is declared invalid, is obligated to compensate the other participant for the actual damage caused to him. However, there is an exception to this rule. Compensation for harm shall not be awarded if the other party knew or should have been aware of the existence of an error, even if it arose as a result of circumstances beyond its control. The subject whose claim is satisfied also has the right to demand compensation for damage. However, for this he needs to prove that the error arose due to circumstances for which the other party is responsible. 
Comments
In Art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation identified one of the most difficult to prove the composition of the disputed legal relations. The basis considered in the article was provided for in both pre-revolutionary and Soviet legislation. G. F. Shershenevich considered him a mistake or ignorance. According to I. B.Novitsky, misconception, speaking as a technical term and denoting one of the conditions for contesting a transaction, provides that the subject, making it, proceeds from untrue, misconceptions about certain circumstances relating to the agreement.
Criteria
When establishing the materiality of the error, the question arises before the experts about the facts that need to be guided. In particular, many are unclear whether it is necessary to determine the moment of significance in accordance with some general criterion or whether their conclusion should be based on the specific factors under which the agreement was concluded. Mislead in various ways. However, its significance is not determined by virtue of the vagaries, the peculiar taste of the subject. It is established in accordance with the understanding of a particular circumstance in the given conditions. To determine it, a legal examination of the agreement is often carried out. In the course of it, all the circumstances in which the relationship arose are evaluated, the participants' capabilities are analyzed to prevent the appearance of a misconception about certain facts. In the previous Civil Code, it was possible to challenge the agreement on the grounds under consideration. However, the legislation did not establish criteria by which the significance of factors is determined. 
Subject and nature of the transaction
The article in question indicates circumstances in which an entity can challenge the agreement. In particular, we are talking about the nature of the transaction. Under it is understood a set of properties that characterize the essence of legal relations. According to these signs, one transaction is different from another. As the practice of litigation shows, the wrong idea of a party about the scope of legal opportunities that it receives when concluding an agreement cannot be the basis for contesting. It is possible to mislead regarding the qualities of the subject of legal relations. At the same time, these are properties that significantly reduce the possibility of using it for its intended purpose. It should be said that in science there is no single approach to the consideration of the subject of the transaction. For example, Shershenevich considers them a legal result, to which the will of individuals is directed. Achieving the goal primarily involves the validity of the transaction. In other words, all the conditions are fulfilled under which the government is ready to provide legal security to the agreement. The validity of the transaction is determined precisely by its content. 
Features of the occurrence of the base
Within the meaning of Art. 178 of the Civil Code, a misconception should take place at the time of conclusion of the agreement. Moreover, the reasons for its occurrence do not matter. Delusion can appear due to the fault of the most mistaken person, for reasons that depend on the second participant or an external subject. Misconception may arise for other reasons. Legal expertise allows you to determine the most significant of them. In the analysis, facts are compared and their influence on the will of the subject is evaluated. The fault of the other party entails the possibility of recognizing the invalidity of the transaction as concluded under the influence of fraud. In this case, the rules of Art. 179. The misconception regarding the motive, as well as the income that the participant in the transaction could receive, will not matter. 
Case Studies
A citizen appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the agreement on donating 1/2 of the house, which was his property, to his wife. The property was acquired before marriage. The citizen referred to Art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, indicating that he was unaware of the result of the conclusion of this agreement. His wife, having received a share of the house as a gift, changed castles, thereby creating obstacles to the use of housing.The applicant had no intention of depriving himself of the right of ownership; he did not know that his wife would want to move his adult son from a previous marriage into the premises. In its decision, the Court indicated that the misconception that the plaintiff had had was significant since he had actually lost his property.
The motive for the conclusion of the agreement was the desire of the donor to maintain marital relations. This fact was taken into account by the Court. Consider another example. Between the buyer and the seller an agreement was concluded for the sale of securities in the amount of one hundred pieces, the nominal value of which amounted to 500 r. The agreement states that the price of the entire block of shares is 10 thousand rubles. This amount has been paid by the acquirer. The court regarded the fact that the total price in the agreement was incorrectly indicated as a sign of material misconception. It was found that the seller’s will was in fact aimed at selling shares at a price of 500 rubles per unit. The plaintiff in his statement indicated that he had suffered real damage in the amount of 40 thousand rubles. However, the court determined that this amount acts as an unpaid portion of the nominal price of securities that the seller intended to receive. 
findings
Within the meaning of Art. 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement may be disputed if the will of the party, expressed in it, was formed due to a misconception about the actual state of affairs. In such circumstances, results other than those expected when entering into a specific relationship arise. Under the influence of error, the party to the transaction makes a wrong opinion or is ignorant of certain facts that are significant to it, in addition to its own will. If the subject correctly assessed the situation, he would not have concluded a contested agreement. Action Art. 178 of the Civil Code applies only to specific circumstances. In practice, it is often difficult for the plaintiff to prove the validity of the requirements. In this regard, courts often resort to legal due diligence. The norm under consideration provides for the possibility of claiming compensation for real damage. Both plaintiff and defendant can exercise this right. In any case, the person must prove the validity of their requirements. Misconception regarding an object may result in its nullity if the object transferred by agreement becomes unusable or the quantity does not correspond to the purpose of the transaction. The norm under consideration establishes criteria for the significance of the circumstances by which a challenge is allowed. Their list is considered exhaustive.
Conclusion
It should be noted that the provision on the materiality of the error is provided not only in domestic legislation. The norms of a number of foreign states also stipulate the possibility of contesting agreements on the basis considered. So, for example, a similar norm is present in the laws of Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, and Quebec. It is also worth saying that in domestic practice cases of contesting transactions made under the influence of error are relatively rare.
