Stating that it carried out work of ‘designing access roads, car parks, and pedestrian walkways to Tashkent Airport and creating simulation videos’ within the territory of the JSC on the basis of an oral agreement, the claimant, through the Didox platform, sent to the respondent a draft contract (offer) No ARC-3 dated 25 August 2023, invoice No 22, and the acts of delivery and acceptance.

Since the contract was not concluded by the respondent, the claimant sent a demand on 31 October 2023, which the defendant left unanswered.

Although there was an oral agreement between the parties, due to the respondent’s failure to conclude a contract, the claimant applied to the court, requesting to compel the respondent to conclude a contract for the performance of the design works.

[The Court has cited Arts 1 II 2, 9 I, 354 I, II CC on the general principle of freedom of contract and Art 377 I, II CC on the circumstances when the conclusion of the contract is compulsory.]

The Court disagrees with the claimant’s arguments that Art 377 CC should be applied to the disputed relationship. This is because that provision applies only in cases where a party who has sent a draft contract, or an [offeree of] draft contract are under a legal obligation to conclude the contract. The contract for the design works indicated in the claimant’s statement does not belong to the category of contracts whose conclusion is mandatorily provided for by law.

In this situation, in accordance with the civil legislation principle of freedom of contract, the respondent is free to decide whether to conclude a contract. The contract that the claimant seeks to compel the respondent to conclude is not among those mandatory public contracts. Moreover, the respondent has not undertaken a duty, either by law or through any other obligation, to conclude a contract with the claimant in the future.

For the above reasons, the court finds that there is no legal basis to satisfy the claim and therefore rejects it.