Compensation of Losses not Related to the Breach of Obligations

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Евгений Четырус ◽  
Evgeniy Chetyrus

The article considers the concept of “indemnity” that is rather new to national civil law. The analogy of this concept that was borrowed from the foreign law system is reflected in the article 4061 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Compensation of losses which occur due the circumstances stated in the contract”. In particular, the given Article of the Code establishes that the parties to the obligations acting jointly as members of the business activities may through their mutual agreement provide for the obligation of one party to compensate for material losses of the other party which were caused by the circumstances listed in the contract, but unrelated to violation of obligations by the party (losses caused by impossibility of fulfilment of obligations, submission of claims by third parties or bodies of state power against a party or third party which was indicated in the contract, etc.). The agreement between the parties shall determine the amount of losses to be compensated for as well as the procedure for such calculation and compensation. The author concludes that the notion “indemnity” and compensation of losses which are not associated with the violations of obligations, should not be confused since they are not identical legal factors.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.F. Cel'niker ◽  
N.A. Fityunina ◽  
S.A. Zvyaginceva

The article reveals the features of the tax law system, which is considered, on the one hand, as an Autonomous, separate branch of law in the system of branches of law of the Russian Federation, and on the other, as a derived category from the norms that determine financial law and, thus, are a sub-branch by their functional purpose. The criteria on the basis of which it seems appropriate to allocate institutions in the tax law system are highlighted. The General and special parts of tax law are characterized through the prism of their Conditioned norms.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.


Legal Concept ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
Elvira Osadchenko

Introduction: the paper is devoted to the study of certain problematic issues of eviction, which gives rise to the responsibility of an unscrupulous seller in the event of a third party claiming a thing. For this purpose, the author considers the concept and features of a bona fide buyer, identified by the civil doctrine and used by the judicial practice. Using the methods of scientific knowledge, primarily the method of system and comparative analysis, the author identifies the constituent features of “eviction” by applying an essential-substantival approach to the study of the concept of a bona fide purchaser. Results: it is found that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a list of criteria confirming the good faith of a person. An attempt to develop such a list is made in the paper through the semantic content of the concept of good faith. Conclusions: the author concluded that fixing the eviction signs and the criteria of good faith in the civil legislation of the Russian Federation will make it possible to protect the interests of contractors, reduce the risks and protect the parties from possible fraudulent actions and most fully ensure the performance of contractual obligations primarily on the part of the seller.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-216
Author(s):  
Yu.V. BAYGUSHEVA

The purpose of the study is to determine the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative without authority in case of refusal to approve the contract conducted by him. To achieve this purpose, the author turns to the history of para. 1 p. 1 and p. 3 of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and identifies the theoretical model that underlies these prescriptions. The legal regulation of the obligation of the representative was borrowed by the domestic legislator from the draft and the final text of the German BGB. The prescriptions for this undertaking were formed as a result of a heated debate that unfolded in the second half of the 19th century among German civil law experts. They developed the basic theories of an obligation of a representative without authority: a theory of tort liability, a theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement, a theory of pre-contractual liability and a theory of obligation to protect trust. The last theory turned out to be the most viable and was enshrined in the final version of § 179 BGB, and therefore in the paragraphs of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The essence of this theory is that if a representative without authority concludes a contract on behalf of the principal who then refuses to approve, then a representative has an obligation to compensate a third party (counterparty) for property damage; this obligation follows from the prescription of the law and the trust of a third party in the existence of authority that the representative shows, regardless of the representative’s fault. The obligation of the representative without authority is not a tort liability or obligation from the guarantee agreement; this obligation is precontractual in nature, however, it cannot be considered as liability for unfair negotiation, as it arises without the fault of the representative. The theory of obligation to protect trust has not been well covered in Russian literature. The few domestic authors who answer the question about the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative are supporters of the theory of tort liability, the theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement or the theory of pre-contractual liability.


Author(s):  
Olesia Emelianova

This article presents a brief analysis of the current norms of civil law in the Russian Federation, practice of their implementation, sources of the Roman private law, and norms of foreign law for the purpose of determination of the subject of obligation that emerges as a result of provision of statement about circumstances. The question of correspondence of such obligation to the criterion of validity is being addressed. The provisions of legal doctrine with regards to structure, essence and content of obligation, as well as approaches of legal technique and history of Roman law are used for argumentation of the main conclusions of this research. As a result, the author was able to formulate the subject of obligation that emerges on the basis of statement about circumstances. Obligations characterized by such subject are detected in the Roman private law and modern German legislation. The acquired results allow concluding that obligation due to provision of statement about circumstances is not an extraneous element of the system of civil law of the Russian Federation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-137
Author(s):  
Veronika Velichko ◽  
Ekaterina Terdi

Problems associated with the possibility of the stipulation of preemptive rights by contract and their effective protection are researched in this article. Based on the examples of German, French and Swiss civil legislation, we establish that contractual preemption is widely used in Europe as a convenient instrument to formalize the interests of the participants in a civil turnover. In this connection, in Russian civil doctrine, the widespread idea that preemptive rights may be stipulated only by law, not by contract, should be revised.We state that the essence of the institution of preemptive rights predetermines its remedy. Historically Russian civil law provides specific remedy in case of breach of the most spread statutory preemptive rights. It is a claim by the entitled person (holder of preemption) against a third party (counterparty of obliged person whose contract breached the preemption) to transfer from the third party to the entitled person the rights and duties that arose under the contract between the third party and the obliged person. This remedy is more efficient for the entitled person than damages. In accordance with the principle of good faith, it may be used only in cases in which the third party knew or should have known about preemption. However, this requirement is complied in relation to protection of statutory preemptions only. As far as both contractual preemptive rights and contracts stipulated the latter are not recognized and not registered in Russia, such suit will be dismissed by court. The lack of effective protection of contractual preemptions impedes the creation of full-fledge system of preemptive rights in Russian civil law.In order to create effective mechanism of protection of contractual preemptive rights by giving the participants of a civil turnover the opportunity to ascertain if there is a contractual preemptions, we suggest that Russian civil legislation should be added by two registration systems. The first is a system for the registration of contracts that stipulate preemptions over immovable property (or registration of the preemptions itself which is better) provided by the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography of the Russian Federation. The second is a system for the registration of notifications on the conclusion of contracts that stipulate contractual preemptive rights over movable things that could be established by an expansion of the existing system for the e-registration of notifications оf pledges of movable things under the jurisdiction of the Federal Chamber of Notaries of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Yuliya Chernenilova

This article describes the periods of development of the legal institution of employment contract in Russia. The characteristic features for each of them are defined. The first period was the longest and was marked by develogment of the contract of personal employment as the origin of the modern institution of employment contract. In the second period, the contract of personal employment represented the institution of civil law, and later became the subject of study of the civil law science. At that time the industrial law of the country was forming. A distinctive feature of the third period was the adoption of codified acts, as well as differentiation in the legal regulation of labor relations of temporary and seasonal workers. The fourth period is characterized by changes in state-legal methods of economic management. With the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation labor legislation was assigned to the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects. It is concluded that the adoption of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation necessitates a more accurate study of the problems arising in the application of specific rules of law governing the peculiarities of labor of certain categories of workers (for example, labor relations with persons with disabilities are not yet perfect because of the youth of the labor law), conflict of laws issues arising in practice, contradictions that occur in a huge array of legal documents not only in labor law, but also in other branches of law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 265 ◽  
pp. 02016
Author(s):  
Vladimir Karetnikov ◽  
Sergey Rudykh ◽  
Aleksandra Ivanova

Survey works on inland waterways can be contingently divided into two directions. The first ones are directed at maintaining the given dimensions of the waterway and are carried out with the use of technical fleet vessels, which includes the dredging fleet. At the same time the basis creation, the results verification and the control of the survey works implementation are carried out by the survey party. The main types of work here are surveying and trawling works, the implementation of which is carried out at the present time on the inland waterways of Russia using geo information technologies, which makes it possible to improve the quality and efficiency of their realization. Such an approach, firstly, has a positive effect on the implementation of the navigational hydrographic support system of navigators, including in the part of electronic cartography, and secondly, it allows to provide the survey works realization at the modern level. The most effective approaches and methods of modern geo information technologies application, implemented for the collection and processing of high-precision bathymetric information and positioning data to ensure the navigation safety on the inland waterways of the Russian Federation, are considered in the paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document