The dispute arose from a contractual relationship between an individual claimant and a real estate establishment. The claimant sought the return of the contract sum, arguing that the consideration under the contract, which was the delivery of iron, had not been received. The claimant maintained that although the price had been paid, the subject matter of the contract had not been delivered, rendering the contract defective and lacking one of its essential elements. Furthermore, the claimant argued that the contract had failed to meet its stipulated conditions, particularly in relation to the claimant’s ability to obtain the goods from the relevant official authorities, who allegedly prevented any removal from the property subject to expropriation proceedings. On this basis, the claimant considered the contract to be rescinded by operation of law and sought restitution of the amount paid as well as costs.