{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012663952962460425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010402532790592492, 'mean_word_length': 5.127423822714682, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR TERMINATION OF CIVIL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE OF APPLICATION

The article considers contractual grounds for termination of civil obligations: compensation, innovation, debt forgiveness. The paper notes some problems of the application of Articles 409, 414, 415 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in judicial practice, analyzes the issues of the ratio of compensation and innovation, the differentiation of these contracts. The problems of qualification of agreements on the grounds for termination of obligations in law enforcement practice and the question of applying the principle of freedom of contract to the relations under consideration are considered. It is noted that at present the practice of applying the legislation on compensation has changed significantly. Despite the restrictions established by the norm of Article 409 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, judicial practice allows the possibility of using works and services as a subject of compensation, which leads to problems of distinguishing such contractual grounds for termination of obligations as compensation and innovation. With regard to the innovation, an analysis of the provisions on the possibility of novating the penalty into a loan obligation is given. A problematic issue is the legal qualification of debt forgiveness as a basis for termination of an obligation. It is noted that the contractual nature of debt forgiveness should be taken into account. Acceptance of notification by the debtor's creditor of his release from the performance of his duty is the silence of the debtor (clause 2 of Article 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The article also considers the question of the ratio of debt forgiveness and donation. The analysis of judicial practice shows that the courts do not consider debt forgiveness as a gift, except in cases when the creditor released the debtor from the performance of the obligation free of charge. In this case, the norms of Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 4 of Article 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are subject to the application of debt forgiveness.