AT Art. 177-179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation The conditions for invalidating transactions are explained. The norms also determine the consequences of such an event for the parties to the relationship. Let's consider them in more detail. 
Article 177 of the Civil Code
This norm establishes that a transaction made by an entity that is capable, but at the time of its conclusion was in a state in which he did not realize the significance of his actions, did not direct them, can be recognized as invalid. To do this, the specified citizen or persons whose interests are violated by the specified event, it is necessary to send a lawsuit to the court. If the incapacity of the entity that committed the transaction is established, it may also be declared invalid. In this case, the process will begin at the suit of the guardian. At the same time, it should be proved that at the time of the transaction, the citizen did not understand the significance of his actions or could not lead them. A similar rule is established for legal relations in which a partially capable entity participated. However, in this case, it must be additionally proved that this was or could be known to the other participant. Upon recognition of the invalidity of the transaction, the provisions of para. 2 and 3 p. 1 art. 171.
Significant misconception
The subject at the conclusion of the transaction may have a misconception about its conditions. It arises, in particular, under the influence of error. If in such a situation a citizen concludes a deal, then it can subsequently be declared invalid. Moreover, the subject’s error should be so significant that if he, knowing the real state of affairs, objectively and reasonably evaluating them, would not have committed it. This provision is established in Art. 178. In the second part of the said norm, it is determined which error can be considered significant. In particular, it is recognized as such if:
- The party to the transaction made an obvious reservation, typo, typo, etc.
- The party is mistaken regarding the subject of legal relations, namely, its properties that are considered significant in circulation.
- The participant has a misconception about the nature of the transaction.
- The party is mistaken about the person with whom it enters into a transaction, or a person associated with the transaction.
- The participant incorrectly represents the circumstance that he mentions in the expression of will, or from which he with all the obviousness for another entity comes from when making the transaction.
Misconception regarding the motive on which the agreement is concluded will not be considered a sufficiently substantial basis for recognition of its invalidity.
Denial of claim
A transaction cannot be invalidated on the grounds indicated above if another participant agrees to maintain its strength on the conditions under which the subject acted under the influence of delusion. In this case, in case of refusal to satisfy the requirements, the court in the decision indicates these circumstances. The authorized body may also not recognize the invalidity of the transaction, if the error, under the influence of which one party concluded it, could not be recognized by the entity who performed the actions under ordinary discretion and taking into account the content of legal relations, related factors and characteristics of the participants.
Effects
In the event of invalidation of a transaction concluded under the influence of error, the rules set forth in Art. 167. The participant, in the suit of which it was carried out, is obliged to compensate the other party for real damage. The exception is cases when the latter was or could have been aware of the existence of an error that arose, inter alia, as a result of circumstances depending on it. In turn, the participant, in the suit of which the transaction is declared invalid, has the right to demand compensation for damage if he can prove that the misconception about the real state of affairs arose as a result of circumstances for which another subject of legal relations is responsible. 
Art. 179 of the Civil Code
This norm considers other grounds for recognizing the invalidity of a transaction. In particular, the subject enclosing it may act under the influence of threat or violence. If this is proved, then at the claim of the victim the transaction will be considered invalid. Another reason is deception. Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation defines it as a deliberate silence about the circumstances that the subject should have reported in the good faith that is required by the terms of civil circulation, as well as the provision of false information regarding the transaction. The claim for recognition of invalidity will be satisfied if the second party or the citizen to whom the unilateral contract is addressed knew or could know about the inaccuracy of the information. Practice (Article 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) shows that the claims of the injured participant are recognized to be justified even if a representative or employee acted on behalf of another entity.
Another reason for the recognition of invalidity is the transaction on conditions that are extremely unfavorable and under the influence of adverse circumstances. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the contract in this situation is considered enslaving. In this case we are talking about the fact that the second participant, taking advantage of the plight of the victim, forced him to conclude a deal. In the event the claim is satisfied on the above grounds, the rules defined in Section 167. apply. In accordance with Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the damage caused to the victim is compensated to him by the other party. It also carries the risks of accidental loss / loss of the subject of the transaction. 
Explanation
In Art. 178-179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation established various grounds for the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction. However, regardless of the conditions, the procedure will be started only at the suit of the victim. Particularly noteworthy is Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Judicial practice includes a fairly large number of cases opened on the grounds indicated in it. Some of the conditions for recognition of invalidity of a transaction relate to the reasons for its conclusion. This is, in particular, violence and threat. They are characterized by a lack of internal will of the victim. Other grounds established in paragraph 2 of Art. 179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and in paragraph three, relate to the mismatch of desire and expression of will. However, all of them are united in one norm. This is due to two circumstances. First of all, every basis provided for by Art. 179 of the Civil Code, should act as a necessary reason for the transaction. Without certain circumstances, such agreements would not have been concluded. Secondly, common to all these grounds are the consequences of invalidity. 
Features of the norm
It is advisable to consider Art. 179 of the Civil Code with the comments of lawyers. Experts, explaining the provisions of the norm, give fairly detailed definitions of the grounds given in it. For example, this applies to deception. It constitutes the intentional provision of false information or the deliberate silence of material facts. Deception receives legal significance in the case when it is resorted to to induce another entity to complete a transaction.The interested participant deliberately forms the victim's misconception about the conditions, the nature of the transaction, the parties, the subject and other circumstances that may affect the decision.
Violence
According to the meaning of the considered norm, it acts as a physical (direct) impact on the participant in the transaction. It can be expressed, for example, in the infliction of bodily harm, beatings, murders, deprivation or restriction of freedom of movement. Violence is also considered the impact on the property of the victim. It is expressed in the destruction or capture of the material values of the subject. In addition, violence can be addressed both directly to the party to the transaction, and to his relatives, affiliates or counterparties. In such cases, the victim suffers moral suffering, he loses customers, shareholders, etc. Violence in any case is not aimed at obtaining consent from the subject to conclude a transaction, but at forcing to perform certain actions that create his appearance. For the culprit, the main thing is to get a signature from the other party in the agreement, act or other document. 
Threat
It is a mental impact on the will of man. The purpose of the threat is to persuade a citizen to conclude a deal under pain of using physical violence against him, disseminating information that discredits his business reputation, etc. The threat does not imply a direct impact on the human body or his property - only on his consciousness. For recognition of invalidity, it must have a real, not a hypothetical character. The subject signing the agreement or other document must be aware of the likelihood of its implementation by the guilty person.
Representative Malicious Contract
Such an agreement is a conspiracy of persons directed against a subject on whose behalf one of the participants acts. Such a deal can be regarded as a special kind of fraud. As a result of the conspiracy, the participant either loses what he should have received if the representative had properly exercised his powers, or acquired new encumbrances. In the first situation, this can be, for example, a purchase at a deliberately inflated cost or a sale at a lower price. In the second case, as a result of such a transaction, an entity may, for example, acquire a house with tenants. 
Enslaving agreement
In the presence of difficult circumstances, the subject is forced to act not entirely of his own free will, since he does not always have a choice. The need to become less legible can be caused by a serious illness, dismissal from work, bankruptcy and other circumstances. Moreover, the plight of a person does not in itself act as a basis for invalidating the agreement. This requires the fulfillment of certain requirements. First of all, the terms of the transaction should be extremely disadvantageous. Secondly, unfair behavior of the other party acts as a mandatory requirement for recognition of invalidity. Knowing that the victim has a difficult situation, the guilty participant takes advantage of this and intentionally offers disadvantageous conditions.
