UAH 32,500 advance for finding a PR manager and HR. A company building an AI marketplace wanted to return the money for candidates who didn't fit (didn't know AI) through the court. And here's the result

In July 2024, Budmen Company entered into an agreement with an individual entrepreneur for the recruitment of personnel for the positions of PR manager and HR generalist. The parties agreed on an advance payment for the search for candidates: UAH 20,000 and UAH 12,500, respectively. The total amount of the advance payment is UAH 32,500.

The problem began when Budman did not hire any of the candidates the entrepreneur had proposed. The company claimed that none of the individuals met the stated requirements — in particular, they did not have documented experience in the position for more than a year and skills in working with artificial intelligence. This, according to the employer, was critical, because they were creating a marketplace with elements of AI.

Lawsuit: money for «air»

Budmen appealed to the Rivne Oblast Commercial Court to return the advance payment for «improper fulfillment of the terms of the contract.» However, the court decided that the entrepreneur had fulfilled her obligations properly.

The key point is that there is a clause in the contract, according to which if the contractor has provided at least 2-5 candidates, the payment for the preparatory work is not refunded. The court found that the entrepreneur provided such candidates. The fact that none of them was accepted does not cancel the fulfillment of the terms of the contract.

The court also drew attention to the fact that the act of acceptance and transfer of services under the terms of the contract is drawn up only in the event of accepting a candidate for a probationary period. That is, demanding an act if no candidate has been accepted is groundless.

Appeal — same result

Budmen appealed this decision, but the appellate court fully agreed with the first instance court. The panel of judges noted that the company misinterpreted the provisions of the contract and did not provide adequate evidence to support its claims.

In particular, the candidates' resumes provided by the entrepreneur met the stated requirements, and additional criteria, such as experience with AI, were not properly proven as mandatory by the time the contract was concluded.

As a result, the appeals court confirmed: funds paid as an advance for the selection of candidates are not refundable if the entrepreneur fulfilled the terms of the contract regarding the number of candidates provided.

Conclusion: you sign — read

This case is another example of how important it is to spell out the terms of the contract in detail and not rely solely on expectations. If a certain experience or skills of the candidates are critical for the business, this should be clearly and unambiguously stated in the text. Otherwise, the money paid may be a completely legitimate payment even for an unnecessary result.