The fault of the contractor of the misguided party of the deal in the Russian civil law

In case the deal is invalid due to the misguidance, the party that claimed for the deal invalidity, has the right to claim for the compensation from the second party for its actual damage, in case there are evidences that the misguidance happened through a fault of the other party. In accordance with the changes to the Russian Federation Civil Code that came into force on September 1, 2013, this rule is applicable for the deals made before this date. The analysis of the fault of the misguided party’s contractor is deemed to be effective within the prescription period for such deals. In the article, the comparison is made of the mentioned rule with its new edition. The conclusion is made that in Article 178 of the Civil Code (as revised before September 1, 2013), the category of the fault of the contractor of the misguided party of the deal is used in the meaning of the causal relationship between the misguidance and the contractor’s misconduct, meaning that the contractor knew or was supposed to know about the circumstances that led to the misguidance; and the category of the fault of the contractor of the misguided party (as revised after September 1, 2013) was replaced with the inadequate category of “the circumstances that the contractor is responsible for”, this solving the problem of the notion and the form of the fault of the contractor of the misguided party. To claim for the damage, the misguided party is not to prove the contractor’s fault, but the fact that the contractor was responsible for the circumstances which caused the misguidance.