This article examines the legal nature of representations as to circumstances in contracts governed by Kazakhstan law and the consequences of their inaccuracy. An analysis of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, doctrinal views and selected comparative solutions supports a contractual model of representations; the rules on sale are considered a supplementary basis for relief, subject to the object of the particular transaction. The practical recommendations address the content of representations, disclosure and the choice of remedies.

INTRODUCTION

Representations as to circumstances have become particularly common in transactions involving shares and participation interests. A seller provides the buyer with information about its title, encumbrances, the company’s financial position, assets, liabilities, licences and disputes. This information may determine the buyer’s decision to contract and the price, but the heading “Representations and Warranties” does not itself establish the legal consequences of those statements. [5] [7]

Representations and warranties are frequently used in contracts governed by Kazakhstan law. We assume that, at least to some extent, they have been borrowed from other legal systems and are not characterised under Kazakhstan civil law in the same way as they are under the laws of those other jurisdictions. We therefore conclude that this issue needs clarification for practising lawyers.

The purpose of this study is to determine the basis on which such statements acquire binding force under Kazakhstan law and the claims that may arise if they prove inaccurate. To that end, it distinguishes a guarantee securing another person’s obligation from a contractual representation, examines the limits of applying sale rules to shares and participation interests, and compares contractual and non-contractual remedies. Its central proposition is that a representation should primarily be understood as an agreed allocation of risk in economic terms and as a material term affecting other material terms of the transaction, in particular its price.

The study is confined to the general rules of civil law. It does not examine the special regulation of securities markets, joint-stock companies or particular types of transaction. The comparative discussion is used to frame questions for Kazakhstan law and does not displace its rules in force.

The Legal Meaning of “Guarantee”

Guarantee as Security for an Obligation

Under Articles 329–332 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “Kazakhstan Civil Code”), a guarantee secures another person’s obligation. The guarantor assumes liability to the debtor’s creditor for the debtor’s performance; the extent of that liability is governed by Article 332 and the guarantee agreement. The arrangement presupposes another person’s debt and three participants in the legal relationship.

A contract clause in which a seller ‘guarantees’ that the acquired company has no debts has a different meaning. The seller provides information about the company’s position and assumes the risk that the information is inaccurate; it does not secure a third party’s performance. Such a clause must therefore be interpreted by reference to its substance, rather than the word chosen by the parties.

As a practical matter, expressly distinguishing contractual representations from a guarantee under Articles 329–332 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code reduces the risk of conflating the two arrangements.

Guarantee of Goods’ Quality

A guarantee of the quality of goods is another form of guarantee under the Kazakhstan Civil Code. It is governed by Article 425 and concerns the seller’s duty to deliver goods that conform to the contract throughout the agreed guarantee period.

A similarity to a representation should be noted: both involve an agreed, verifiable characteristic and a period during which its absence has legal significance.

A quality guarantee is nevertheless different from a statement about circumstances concerning, for example, a company whose shares or participation interest are being sold. Whether Article 425 may be applied by analogy to shares depends on the particular characteristics asserted of the shares and the company.3

The Legislative Position

The Kazakhstan Civil Code contains no specific article on representations as to circumstances. Proposals to add Article 392-1 on representations and Article 351-1 on contractual damages were discussed as part of legislative work, but cannot be applied as law in force. The absence of a specific provision does not, however, prevent parties from including statements of fact in a contract and agreeing on the consequences of their inaccuracy within the general rules of the Kazakhstan Civil Code.

THE CONTRACTUAL NATURE OF REPRESENTATIONS

Freedom of Contract

Freedom of contract allows the parties to determine the terms of agreements both provided for and not provided for by legislation, provided they do not conflict with mandatory rules (Article 380(2) and Article 382(1) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). The parties may therefore expressly state in the contract that a particular circumstance exists or does not exist on an agreed date and allocate the risk that the statement is inaccurate. [1]

A general formula that a party “guarantees” the favourable condition of an asset is insufficient to characterise the statement. The contractual term must be verifiable: it should identify the circumstance, the relevant time, the person making the statement and the consequences of breach. The parties may emphasise the significance of particular representations to the agreed price or to the decision to contract; this also matters when interpreting the agreement in light of Article 393 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code. [1]

Interpretation and Pre-contractual Statements

Where a term is unclear, Article 392(2) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code requires the parties’ actual common intention to be ascertained in light of the purpose of the contract, negotiations, correspondence, established practice and subsequent conduct. Due diligence materials and pre-contractual statements may therefore assist in determining the meaning of an agreed representation. The presence of information in correspondence does not, however, itself mean that the parties agreed to separate contractual liability for its inaccuracy. Statements material to the transaction should be incorporated into the contract or its schedules. [1]

Doctrinal Debate on Representations

Whether representations require specific legislation remains a matter of doctrinal debate. Participants in a 2016 academic and practical conference recommended “introducing into civil legislation terms providing for representations as to circumstances (representations and warranties)” [7]. This recommendation expresses a view about the desirable development of the law; it does not establish that the Kazakhstan Civil Code currently contains a specific rule.

U. N. Rakhymgozhina considers a dispute arising from the sale of a participation interest in which the absence of a specific rule led the court to apply the general provisions on contractual liability and the quality of goods. On that basis, she concludes that ‘the time has come to introduce the institution of representations and warranties into the Civil Code’ [5]. The example demonstrates the practical importance of legal characterisation.

M. K. Suleimenov takes a more cautious position on the legislative borrowing proposed in the draft law. In his assessment, “the institution of representations is based on a presumption of bad faith” [6]; he considers that introducing the proposed article without aligning it with the general rules of the Kazakhstan Civil Code on transactions and liability would be ineffective. His criticism is directed at the draft’s design and its incorporation into the Code. It does not rule out the parties’ ability to agree on specific contractual representations under the existing rules on freedom of contract.

Comparing these positions helps distinguish two questions: whether commercial parties need representations to allocate information risk, and whether a separate article in the Code is required. The need for such a mechanism is evident in transactions involving corporate rights. Yet the example described by U. N. Rakhymgozhina does not establish that every inaccurate statement about a company’s property is a defect in the participation interest being sold: the buyer acquires the interest, while the assets belong to the company. A contractual model permits liability for agreed statements without first resolving the broader legislative question. [5] [6]

The debate about the liability model also concerns a fixed sum payable upon breach. M. K. Suleimenov observes that the proposed arrangement “in effect turns damages into a penalty for the fact of breach” [6]. This distinction matters under the law in force: recovery of damages requires proof of their constituent elements and their connection to the breach, whereas a contractual penalty is subject to its own rules, including possible reduction by a court. The name given to the payment in the contract should not obscure its legal nature. [6]

LIMITS OF APPLYING THE RULES ON SALE

Shares

A share is a security under Article 129(2) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code. Article 406(2) applies the rules on sale to securities unless legislative acts establish special rules. This provides a direct connection to the provisions on third-party rights and agreed characteristics of the object sold, but does not remove the need to consider the special rules on joint-stock companies and securities markets. The application of those rules is beyond the scope of this article.

Participation Interests in an LLP

Unlike a share, a participation interest in a limited liability partnership (LLP) is not a security; its transfer is a sale of a property right. Article 406(4) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code permits the sale provisions to apply to such a transaction unless the content or nature of the right implies otherwise. The application of any particular provision must therefore be justified separately.

Representations concerning the participation interest itself are most closely connected to the object sold: the seller’s title, the absence of a pledge or attachment, and the absence of third-party claims. Information about the partnership’s debts, licences and assets operates at another level. These matters affect the economic value of the interest but do not automatically become its legal characteristics. A distinction must therefore be drawn between applying rules directly to the object sold and seeking to extend them to circumstances concerning the partnership’s business.

Third-party Rights

Article 413 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code requires the seller to deliver goods free of third-party rights unless the buyer agrees to accept encumbered goods. If the duty is breached, the buyer may seek a price reduction or termination and damages unless the seller proves that the buyer knew or ought to have known of the encumbrance. Article 414 governs the consequences of third parties taking goods on grounds that arose before performance of the contract and precludes an advance exclusion of the seller’s corresponding liability.

For shares, Article 406(2) is the starting point; for a participation interest, the qualification in Article 406(4) must be taken into account. In both cases, a separate representation about title and the absence of encumbrances makes the allocation of risk more precise. Reliance on Articles 413–414 in a sale of a participation interest should be accompanied by an explanation of why the relevant rule is compatible with the nature of the corporate right.

Quality and Description

Article 422 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code links the quality of goods to the contract and, for a sale by description, to that description. This raises the question whether agreed characteristics of shares or a participation interest may be treated as characteristics of the object sold. Article 422 does not, however, directly establish that a company’s financial position is a quality of an interest held by one of its participants. The judicial example described by U. N. Rakhymgozhina illustrates that such an argument can be made, but it does not erase the distinction between a corporate right and the company’s property. The consequences of inaccurate information about the company should therefore be specified in the contract itself. [2] [5]

Consequences of Delivering an Object with Defects

Article 428 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code provides for a price reduction, remedy of defects, reimbursement of the costs of remedy, replacement of the goods, or withdrawal from the contract with a refund. Not all these remedies fit the nature of a corporate right: a price reduction and withdrawal may be meaningful, whereas ‘repairing’ or replacing an interest will usually not reflect the breach.

Applying Article 428 to a participation interest, including its prohibition on the buyer waiving the rights it confers, requires separate assessment in light of Article 406(4) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code.

Sale of an Enterprise

An enterprise as a property complex is a separate object of civil rights (Article 119 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). Article 499 governs the transfer of an enterprise as such and, among other things, permits a price reduction if undisclosed debts are discovered. Acquiring shares or a participation interest is not the same as acquiring the enterprise as a property complex: the company remains the owner of its assets and the debtor under its obligations. Article 499 therefore cannot directly ground a purchaser’s claim arising from the acquisition of a corporate right; it may be cited only as a cautious comparative argument.

Remedies for Inaccurate Representations

Damages

The general model of contractual liability rests on Article 9(4) and Article 350 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code. Damages comprise actual loss and lost profit; their recovery depends on breach of an obligation and loss caused by that breach. The law permits an agreement limiting recovery to actual loss to property, but treats an advance release from liability for damages as void. In assessing lost profit, account is taken of the steps the creditor took to obtain it. [1]

In a dispute over an inaccurate representation, the key matters are the content of the statement, the date as at which it was made, evidence of its inaccuracy, the nature and amount of the loss, and causation. The contract may identify categories of recoverable expense in advance — for example, tax assessments, payments to third parties and reasonable costs of legal protection — but that list does not itself relieve the claimant of proving the requirements for damages. An agreed notification procedure helps establish when the breach was discovered and the scope of the claim.

Contractual Penalty

A contractual penalty allows the parties to fix a monetary amount payable for breach without requiring the creditor to prove the amount of its loss (Article 293 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). Its relationship with damages is governed by Article 351: as a general rule, damages are recoverable to the extent not covered by the penalty, unless the parties agree on another legally permissible arrangement. A court may also reduce an excessive penalty at the debtor’s request (Article 297). [1]

If a contract fixes a payment for an inaccurate representation, whether that payment can be characterised as a contractual penalty depends on the substance of the obligation, not the name selected by the parties. Calling the sum “contractual damages” does not displace Article 297 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code. Terms dealing with a fixed payment and with compensation for proven loss should therefore be drafted separately, addressing whether they may be recovered together and preventing double recovery. [1] [6]

Variation, Termination and Withdrawal

A material breach may justify termination by a court where the other party is substantially deprived of what it was entitled to expect when entering into the contract (Article 401(2) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). Before applying to the court, a party must propose termination and receive a refusal or no response within the prescribed period (Article 402(2)). Damages may be claimed where termination results from a material breach (Article 403(5)). The significance of an inaccurate representation to the price and purpose of the transaction must be proved in such a dispute.

Withdrawal from a contract without a court order requires a separate basis in law or in the parties’ agreement (Article 404(1) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). Inaccuracy of a representation alone therefore does not automatically confer a right of withdrawal. If the parties link this remedy to breach of a fundamental representation or to losses exceeding an agreed threshold, the contract should define those conditions and the notification procedure, including the notice period under Article 404(4).

Invalidity of the Transaction

Inaccurate information may also affect the validity of a transaction. Article 159(8) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code permits a transaction to be challenged for a material mistake concerning its nature, the identity of its object, or qualities that substantially reduce its usability.

The law also takes account of gross negligence and business risk.

Under Article 159(9) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code, fraud may constitute a separate ground of invalidity. An inaccurate representation is not automatically equivalent to mistake or fraud: the circumstances required by law for each ground must be established.

Declaring a transaction invalid has consequences different from contractual compensation while retaining the acquired asset. Article 157-1(3) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code provides for the parties to return what they received or, if return in kind is impossible, its value. Article 157-1(4) permits recovery of losses associated with invalidity from the party at fault.

Choosing this remedy requires an assessment of whether the buyer seeks to exit the transaction or retain it and recover its loss.

Good Faith and the Buyer’s Knowledge

The general requirements of good faith, reasonableness and fairness are set out in Article 8 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code and cannot be excluded by contract. A clause preserving the buyer’s right to rely on a representation after conducting due diligence therefore does not prevent a court from assessing the buyer’s conduct. The buyer’s knowledge also has specific significance under the rules on third-party rights: Article 413 expressly considers whether the buyer knew or ought to have known of an encumbrance. A contractual allocation of information risk must account for both levels of regulation.

Business Risk

For obligations breached in the course of business activity, Article 359(2) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code provides for liability unless the debtor proves that performance was impossible due to force majeure. The law or the contract may establish a different regime. An agreement made in advance to exclude or limit liability for an intentional breach is void (Article 359(3)). Representations should be drafted in accordance with these Civil Code rules, with the conditions of liability, including the statutory grounds for exemption, stated precisely.

TIME LIMITS FOR CLAIMS

The general limitation period is three years (Article 178 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code). Its length and method of calculation are established by law and cannot be changed by agreement (Article 177(2)). As a general rule, time begins to run when the person knew or ought to have known of the infringement of its right (Article 180(1)), and a court applies the limitation period only upon a party’s application made before judgment (Article 179(2)). [1]

A contractual period during which representations remain effective must be distinguished from the statutory limitation period. The parties may consider a deadline for notifying an identified inaccuracy as part of an agreed compensation mechanism, but its permissibility and the consequences of missing it must be assessed in relation to the particular obligation. Such a term cannot amend the statutory limitation period or circumvent its mandatory nature. [1]

Article 430 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code, concerning the time for discovering defects in goods, offers a further point of reference where the rules on quality apply to the dispute: in the absence of a guarantee period, claims must be made within a reasonable period, subject to the statutory outer limit. It would be unjustified to extend this regime to every representation in a sale of shares or a participation interest without first establishing that the sale rules apply. [2]

The Judicial Position

The sources reviewed disclose no regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan specifically addressing representations as to circumstances. Its Regulatory Resolution No. 6 of 7 July 2016 on invalid transactions is relevant to the choice of remedy, although it does not directly govern contractual representations. [3]

Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the resolution emphasise identifying the disputed legal relationship, the applicable rules, and the subject matter and grounds of the claim. This supports the need to substantiate the chosen claim consistently — whether for contractual damages, the application of sale rules, or invalidity of the transaction. The differences between these claims also affect the facts that must be proved. [3]

The resolution’s provisions on bilateral restitution explain the consequences of declaring a transaction invalid, rather than the regime for performing representations. As a general rule, return of property entails return of the counter-performance; the resolution also addresses the possibility of a separate claim against the seller in the context of vindication. These explanations matter where a dispute goes beyond compensation under a subsisting contract. [3]

The rules on a good-faith acquirer and vindication in paragraphs 12–13 of the resolution cannot be used as a direct answer to the significance of the recipient’s knowledge of a representation. Their relevance here is limited to a more general indication of the role of the buyer’s knowledge and conduct. That observation does not replace an analysis of Articles 8, 413 and 414 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code in relation to the particular claim. [1] [2] [3]

COMPARATIVE-LAW PERSPECTIVES

England

English law distinguishes a representation that induced a party to enter into a contract from a warranty given as a contractual promise; the distinction is linked to different bases for relief. Depending on the circumstances, an inaccurate representation may give rise to rescission and damages, while breach of a warranty is addressed as a contractual matter. Section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 governs the consequences of a misrepresentation and the burden of proving reasonable grounds for believing it to be true. These arrangements show the importance of legal characterisation, but cannot be transplanted into a Kazakhstan-law contract merely by translating the terms. [20] [21]

Germany

German law offers a different set of solutions. Section 453 of the BGB extends the rules on sale to the sale of rights; section 442 links the buyer’s remedies to its knowledge of a defect; and section 444 limits a seller’s ability to exclude liability where it fraudulently conceals a defect or assumes a guarantee. Section 276 concerns, among other matters, stricter liability resulting from the assumption of a guarantee and the prohibition on excluding liability for intent in advance, while section 311 concerns obligations arising during negotiations. For the analysis of Kazakhstan law, the need to distinguish the buyer’s knowledge, an agreed guarantee of a characteristic, and pre-contractual conduct is particularly instructive. [11] [12] [13] [15] [16]

France

French law separately regulates the duty to disclose decisive pre-contractual information (Article 1112-1 of the Code civil) and the consequences of fraud, including deliberate concealment of decisive information (Article 1137). Transactions involving the sale of companies may use a contractual garantie d’actif et de passif to compensate for changes in assets and liabilities. The French Court of Cassation’s decision of 8 March 2017, No. 15-19.174, highlights the importance of specifying precisely the person for whose benefit that guarantee is given. For contract drafting, this illustrates why the subject of a statement and the person entitled to enforce it should be identified expressly. [17] [18] [19] [21]

Russia

The Russian legislature has codified representations as to circumstances in Article 431.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, defining the consequences of their inaccuracy and certain features of business and corporate transactions. This model permits comparison between possible legislative solutions and the law currently in force in Kazakhstan. Article 431.2 of the Russian Civil Code is not, however, a source of rights and obligations for parties to a contract governed by Kazakhstan law. [8]

The comparison reveals no single universal model for representations. The jurisdictions examined connect pre-contractual statements, contractual warranties, the buyer’s knowledge and compensation in different ways. For Kazakhstan law, the comparative material is most useful as a set of questions for the parties to resolve in their contract: which facts are assumed at the risk of the party making the statement, who may claim relief, how disclosed information is treated, and what consequence follows from a breach. [1] [2] [8] [13] [17] [18]

PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS AND AN ILLUSTRATIVE CONTRACT TERM

In our view, merely including warranties and statements in the Agreement may prove insufficient. We therefore draw attention to several practical points:

1. The subject of each representation should be identified separately: it may concern the seller, the share or participation interest itself, the company, or its assets or liabilities. This distinction helps establish whether the statement concerns the object sold or constitutes a separate allocation of risk.

2. The relevant date should be stated for each representation. Information may be confirmed at signing, at closing, or at both dates; discovery of an error later does not alter the agreed time as at which accuracy is assessed.

3. Separating representations into (1) fundamental or title and authority representations and (2) operational representations concerning the company’s business helps the parties agree different thresholds for breach and consequences of inaccuracy.

4. Exceptions should be disclosed in a schedule to the contract. A general reference to documents being available does not show which circumstances the buyer accepted at its own risk. A schedule is also easier to work with subsequently.

5. The contract should define the categories of recoverable damages arising from breach of a warranty or an inaccurate representation, how expenses are to be substantiated and, in international transactions, how double recovery for the same loss will be prevented.

7. Limits on liability must comply with mandatory prohibitions, including the prohibition on advance limits for intentional breach and, where Article 414 of the Kazakhstan Civil Code applies, on limiting liability when third parties take the object sold.

7. The right to withdraw from the contract without a court order should be linked to a defined breach and an agreed notification procedure.

8. A general reference to ‘material inaccuracy’ leaves the conditions for exercising that right uncertain. The ratio of the loss to the total contract price could be used as a criterion. In our view, however, legal criteria are preferable to financial ones: for example, where an inaccuracy discovered later creates a demonstrable risk that the party which acquired the transaction asset will lose it.

9. A deadline for notifying a breach must not be framed as an amendment to the statutory limitation period.

ILLUSTRATIVE CONTRACT TERM

‘Warranties’ means the statements of the Parties set out in this Agreement and its schedules concerning circumstances material to the conclusion of the Agreement, the determination of its material terms and its performance. Warranties do not constitute a guarantee or suretyship securing another person’s obligation under Articles 329–332 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The Parties confirm that the accuracy of those circumstances formed the basis on which the price and other terms of the transaction were agreed.

A Party giving a Warranty assumes liability for its accuracy.

The accuracy of each Warranty shall be assessed as at the date specified for it or over the agreed period.

A Warranty is breached if the relevant statement is inaccurate or incomplete in a manner that materially misrepresents the circumstance described in the Warranty.

If a Warranty includes an obligation to act, refrain from acting or maintain a particular state of affairs, breach of that obligation constitutes a breach of the Warranty.

A Party that discovers an inaccuracy or breach of a Warranty shall notify the other Party and provide the supporting documents available to it. A claim is not conditional on the Party giving the Warranty admitting the breach or on a prior court judgment.

A Party in breach of a Warranty shall compensate the other Party for losses caused by that breach of Warranty and supported by documentary evidence.

This illustrative clause is available for download in the appendix to this article.

CONCLUSION

The analysis shows that, even without a specific article in the Kazakhstan Civil Code, representations as to circumstances can become binding as terms agreed by the parties concerning facts and the allocation of the risk of inaccuracy. This characterisation distinguishes them from a guarantee of another person’s debt and allows the general rules on contractual liability to operate. The rules on sale may supplement protection for a buyer of shares and, subject to Article 406(4) of the Kazakhstan Civil Code, a participation interest, but they do not erase the distinction between a corporate right and the company’s property.

The practical significance of this conclusion lies in precise drafting. The parties should identify the subject and date of a representation, disclosed exceptions, categories of recoverable loss, the relationship between damages and any contractual penalty, the notification procedure, and grounds for withdrawal. Once a dispute arises, a claim should be founded on a defined legal model — contractual liability, applicable sale rules, or invalidity of the transaction — with due regard to the different grounds and consequences of each. Further legislative development might make the law more certain, but whether and how it should proceed remains a matter of scholarly debate.

References

Kazakhstan Legislation

1. Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part) of 27 December 1994 No. 268-XIII: as at 20 August 2026.

2. Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part) of 1 July 1999 No. 409: as at 25 August 2026.

3. On Certain Issues of the Invalidity of Transactions and the Application by Courts of the Consequences of Their Invalidity: Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 7 July 2016 No. 6, as amended by Regulatory Resolutions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 20 April 2018 No. 7, 29 September 2022 No. 8, and 28 November 2024 No. 2.

4. Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 31 March 2022 No. 171 “On the Draft Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning Improvements to Civil Legislation’”.

Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 31 March 2022 No. 171 “On the Draft Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning Improvements to Civil Legislation’”.

Kazakhstan Scholarship and Practice

5. Rakhymgozhina, U. N. Liability for Providing False Representations and Warranties / U. N. Rakhymgozhina // Zakon.kz. — 2019. — 20 June. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.zakon.kz/stati/4974224-otvetstvennost-za-predostavlenie-lozhnykh-zavereniy-i-garantiy.html

6. Suleimenov, M. K. The Draft Law Should Be Withdrawn from Consideration / M. K. Suleimenov // Paragraph Information System. — 2023. — 29 June. — Online resource. — URL: https://prg.kz/Document/?doc_id=38656180

7. Improving the Civil Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan Through the Implementation of English Law Provisions: Recommendations of the Participants in the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Astana, 25 November 2016 // Paragraph Information System. — Online resource. — URL: https://prg.kz/document/?doc_id=38577969

Russian Law and Scholarship

8. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part One) of 30 November 1994 No. 51-FZ: Article 431.2, “Representations as to Circumstances”, introduced by Federal Law of 8 March 2015 No. 42-FZ // ConsultantPlus. — Online resource.

9. Voronin, E. M. The Practice of Applying the Doctrine of Representations as to Circumstances under Article 431.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation / E. M. Voronin // Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation. — 2019. — No. 6 (64). — pp. 193–208.

10. The Supreme Court Limits Liability for Inaccurate Representations (Article 431.2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation): Reasonableness of the Recipient as a Condition of Their Effectiveness // Zakon.ru. — 2024. — 5 August. — Online resource.

German Law

11. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 276 Verantwortlichkeit des Schuldners [Liability of the debtor] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__276.html

12. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 311 Rechtsgeschäftliche und rechtsgeschäftsähnliche Schuldverhältnisse [Obligations arising from legal transactions and relationships similar to legal transactions] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__311.html

13. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 442 Kenntnis des Käufers [Knowledge of the buyer] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__442.html

14. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 443 Garantie [Guarantee] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__443.html

15. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 444 Haftungsausschluss [Exclusion of liability] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__444.html

16. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) [German Civil Code]: § 453 Rechtskauf; Verbrauchervertrag über den Kauf digitaler Inhalte [Sale of rights; consumer contract for the purchase of digital content] // Gesetze im Internet. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__453.html

French Law

17. Code civil [French Civil Code]: Article 1112-1 [Duty to provide pre-contractual information] // Légifrance.

18. Code civil [French Civil Code]: Article 1137 [Fraud] // Légifrance.

19. Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, 8 mars 2017, n° 15-19.174 [French Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 8 March 2017, No. 15-19.174] // Légifrance.

English Law

20. Misrepresentation Act 1967 [United Kingdom Misrepresentation Act 1967]. — 1967. — Chapter 7. — Section 2 “Damages for misrepresentation” // Legislation.gov.uk.

21. Contract law fundamentals: how the position differs across Europe // Osborne Clarke. — 2023. — 7 February. — Online resource. — URL: https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/contract-law-fundamentals-how-position-differs-across-europe