Pre-trial Dispute Resolution with Surrogacy Agency: When Negotiations Fail

Introduction

Disputes Law Firm was approached by a Portuguese citizen who had entered into a contract with SUCCESSFUL PARENTS AGENCY LLC. After an unsuccessful first attempt at artificial insemination, the agency demanded an additional payment of $3,300 beyond the terms specified in the contract.

Background of the Case

contract execution and first attempt

In October 2023, the client and SUCCESSFUL PARENTS AGENCY LLC entered into a medical program coordination agreement with a term until December 31, 2025. The contract provided for the provision of services for organizing and coordinating assisted reproductive technology programs at a fixed price. The client transferred her embryos to the agency for the procedure. The first attempt at artificial insemination ended in miscarriage by the surrogate mother in Ukraine.

demand for additional payment

To carry out a repeat attempt, the counterparty demanded an additional payment: $300 USD increased compensation for surrogate motherhood in Ukraine and $3,000 USD increased compensation at the end of pregnancy. The client refused the additional payment, referring to the previously agreed contract terms.

termination of communication

After the client's refusal to pay additionally, agency representatives stopped responding to messages and ignored all communications. The client repeatedly attempted to contact the agency through WhatsApp but received no responses. It was simultaneously discovered that the agency had not been paying for the storage of the client's embryo at the Private Enterprise "Medical Center 'Mother and Child'," creating arrears for this service.

Legal Assessment of the Situation

The opponent's actions violated several fundamental civil law principles. Article 632 of the Civil Code of Ukraine permits price changes after contract conclusion only in cases established by the contract or law. Clause 11.5 of the contract clearly stipulated that changes could only be made by mutual consent of the parties in the form of an additional agreement. The agency's unilateral demand for increased payment contradicted both legislation and contractual terms.

Articles 629 and 651 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establish the mandatory nature of contract performance and the possibility of its modification only by mutual consent. Clause 4.5 of the contract obligated the parties to conduct negotiations within 3 days in case of objections regarding services provided. The agency ignored this procedure.

Articles 901-902 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding service provision contracts place an obligation on the contractor to provide services in accordance with agreed terms. The agency's refusal to continue contract performance without legal grounds constituted a material breach of obligations.

Pre-trial Dispute Resolution

Disputes Law Firm prepared two proposals for pre-trial dispute resolution. The first proposal dated December 18, 2024 contained demands for returning to contractual performance: appointing an authorized person for negotiations, notifying within 2 days the reasons for conflict and possible resolution paths, taking actions for proper contract performance, and ensuring embryo storage.

The second proposal dated December 19, 2024 considered the client's willingness to compromise. It provided two options: either resuming contract performance with consideration of increased service costs, or terminating the contract by mutual consent without any claims from the client.

Agency's Disregard

SUCCESSFUL PARENTS AGENCY LLC completely ignored both pre-trial settlement proposals. The agency provided no response to any communication via email, regular mail, or messenger services. Such conduct demonstrates an unprofessional approach to business and disrespect for legal procedures.

Client refused to take legal action

Despite the well-founded legal position and high chances of success in court, the client decided not to pursue SUCCESSFUL PARENTS AGENCY LLC through judicial proceedings. This decision left the dispute unresolved and allowed the agency to avoid liability for breach of contractual obligations.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates the importance of preliminary legal expertise of contracts in reproductive medicine, verification of counterparty reputation and financial stability before entering agreements, and professional legal support of procedures at all stages of cooperation. Working with experienced surrogacy solicitors can help navigate the complex legal landscape surrounding surrogate motherhood in Ukraine and ensure proper protection of clients' interests throughout the process.