“Is the risk of non-payment of rent always and unconditionally borne by the landlord? (on the example of item 27 of the Review of the SC RF №3 2020)” — Tatyana Tereshchenko’s blog
Paragraph 27 of the review includes a definition N 310-ЭС19-16588 and the key conclusion: "The signing by the tenant of the act of transfer and acceptance of the subject of the lease in case of impossibility to use the subject of the lease in the circumstances for which the tenant does not respond, does not give rise to the right of the lessor to demand the rent".
In my opinion, a certain danger to the balance of interests of the parties in the lease (the contract is mutual after all) and a distortion of the idea of the essence of the lease relationship is the literal reading and application of this conclusion or snatching out of the context of individual arguments. Given that any lawyer hard to resist their faith in their actions ("the determination of their legal position"), it is important to compare the conclusion formulated by the SC RF with the legal assessment of the totality of the factual circumstances.