The key facts

  • When terminating a contract, developers withhold 10–12% of the full apartment price, not of the amount actually paid
  • The developer's penalty for late delivery is 0.01–0.05% per day and is capped at 5–10% of the contract price
  • In 51% of the 129 shared-equity construction contracts studied, the developer's liability for delays was not provided for at all

Asymmetry in contracts: the buyer's penalty is calculated from the full price of the home

The outlet Kun.uz published an analysis of standard contracts, which construction companies offer, and showed that their terms are systematically skewed in favor of developers. Using a hypothetical example of an apartment worth 500 million soums: if the buyer decides to terminate the contract — for example, because construction has stopped — some developers withhold 10–12% not from the amount paid, but from the total cost of the home. That is, with an initial payment of 150 million soums, the shareholder may lose 50–60 million soums.

The developer's liability is limited and 'freezes'

For construction companies the picture is the opposite: the penalty for late delivery of a home in their contracts is usually 0.01–0.05% per day and only in rare cases reaches 0.1%, while its maximum size is capped at 5 or 10% of the contract price. This means that even if the developer delays delivery not by a year but by five years, the penalty stops growing at some point. For the same hypothetical home worth 500 million soums, a year's delay yields the developer a penalty of about 50 thousand soums per day — according to the outlet's estimate, in Tashkent conditions that is the price of one plate of pilaf, and it can only be recovered through court.

What the report showed and what had already changed

Data on the scale of the problem are contained in a report presented in July 2026: of 129 shared-equity construction contracts studied, in 51% of cases no liability whatsoever was provided for the developer for late delivery of the home. In 84% of contracts there was no warranty period for the property, in 80% recalculations favored developers, and only 20% of contracts treated the parties' rights equally. The absence of mandatory minimum requirements for such contracts, the publication concludes, is what preserves this situation.

The 'Imarat Development' precedent and the antitrust authority's position

The topic is not new: back in September 2025, Kun.uz examined complaints from clients of the company 'Imarat Development' about unfair contract terms — at the time it was about lost time, unfulfilled expectations, and penalties for those who demanded their money back. After that publication, the Antimonopoly Committee said it had received thousands of citizens' complaints about similar contracts and characterized the practice of withholding 10% of the contract price as a penalty as contrary to the law. Nevertheless, as follows from the July 2026 report, unbalanced terms still prevail in the contracts offered by developers.