scholarly journals The Railway’s Unjustified Enrichment as a Result of Abuse of the Right in Obligations To Carry Goods

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 20-32
Author(s):  
A. V. Ulyanov
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Economic Goal

The paper examines issues related to unscrupulous behavior of the railways, which unthoroughly benefit at the expense of other participants of the obligations for the carriage of goods. The paper considered cases where the railways use legally valid facts (transactions) as imaginary grounds for obtaining property (money) from freight and cargo owners and encourage them to provide the undue. It is proposed to qualify such a conduct of the railways as an abuse of the right committed for the purpose of unjustified enrichment. Based on the analysis of complex contractual relations (contracts on carriage organization, contracts in the form of submission and acceptance of an application for the carriage of goods, contracts of carriage of goods, etc.) arising between the participants of legal relations concerning the carriage of goods (shippers, consignees, owners of infrastructure and carriers), the author has identified conditions that are conducive to receiving unjustified enrichment by the railways, namely: combining different legal statuses by the railways (carrier, owner of infrastructure, agent of a third party, etc.), removal from the railways of the burden of performing obligations and risks of liability for the failure to perform obligations, the position of a weaker party assigned to the railways’ contractual counterparties. According to the author, in order to prevent references to legal facts as grounds for enrichment, the economic purpose of the legal relationship must be recognized as an appropriate ground. It is noted that such an economic goal is one for the goals pursued by the whole system of legal relations for the carriage of goods and that its violation deprives the railways of the right to demand execution under the transaction, since making this claim must be considered as an abuse of the right. It is argued that the contractual counterparty of the railways, aware of the absence of grounds for granting property on its part, does not commit a legal error, as soon is it is a weaker party to the contract.

REDEMPTION AS A LEGAL FACT IN CIVIL LAW

2021 ◽  
pp. 184-190
Author(s):  
Anatoly Ya. Ryzhenkov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Relation ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Fact ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the problem of redemption as a legal fact. In its external form and in its legal consequences, it represents a paid transfer of ownership of a thing and thus primarily resembles a contract of sale, so that it could be considered as a special case of it. However, at the doctrinal level, there is a completely different picture, where the redemption under its civil law regime is not only not identified with the purchase and sale, but sometimes does not even receive unambiguous recognition as a transaction. It is noted that the comparison of various options for redemption, enshrined in the norms of civil law, allows us to identify one common feature for them: in all cases, the decision to transfer ownership or to terminate the obligation (as in the case of an annuity contract) is made not by mutual will, but unilaterally. At the same time, the transfer of the right or the termination of the legal relationship in all cases is carried out on a strictly reimbursable basis. The universal property of redemption is precisely the legal effect, the emergence of a new legal relationship is only optional. Therefore, it is possible to formulate the definition of re-demption as a paid termination of a real or binding legal relationship at the request of one of the parties or a third party. In determining the redemption price, the agreement of the parties one of them is obliged to pay the agreed amount and the right to appropriate the thing from another – an obligation to provide the item and receive the agreed amount. Thus, the relation-ship of the participants in the buyout fits the description of the obligation. Moreover, the existence of an agreement between the parties indicates that this obligation is of a contractual nature. In the case of a buyout, such an integral element of the freedom of contract as the ability to decide at its own discretion whether to enter into this contract or not to enter into it is not maintained. More precisely, only one of the parties to the contract, namely the initiator of the purchase, is entitled to such a right, and this violates another fundamental principle of civil law – the equality of the participants in the legal relationship. The overall buyout model is a complex factual composition and includes the following elements: 1) the Base purchase (for example, abandoned the maintenance of cultural values, the mistreatment of animals, disagreeing with the decision of the shareholders meeting, etc); 2) treatment with the ransom demand, the transaction; 3) determination of the redemption price of: a) by agreement – a contractual obligation; b) court – ordered non-contractual obli-gation; 4) Payment of the purchase price (optional characterized proprietary and joint rela-tions, is the transfer of property to the payer; 5) Termination of a pre-existing legal relation-ship (with or without a new one).

scholarly journals DISCUSSION ISSUES OF LEGAL DISCRETION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-169
Author(s):  
N.V. Kuznetsova ◽  
L.P. Lapshina
Keyword(s):  
Legal Norms ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Discretionary Powers

The article presents an analysis of some issues of legal discretion. There is no unified approach either to the definition of discretion or to the legal nature of this phenomenon. There are difficulties in the evaluation of the legal discretion in acting legislature. In private law trial discretion comprises codified regulation. This phenomenon is particularly typical in contract law: the court’s assessment of the behavior of participants in contractual relations as lawful or unlawful, abuse of rights, determination of the nature of the legal norms governing contractual relations. The discretionary powers of the court in many respects make it possible to ensure uniformity in the consideration of cases of a certain category, to form judicial practice on the application of the relevant legislation. The main areas of judicial activity in this case are: making the right choice of the rule of law to be applied to qualify the relevant legal relationship, applying the analogy of law and as well as the legal position developed when resolving a certain category of cases.

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

Ustawowe i umowne prawo pierwokupu przysługujące dzierżawcy nieruchomości rolnych – wybrane problemy prawne

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-394
Author(s):  
Aneta Suchoń
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Agricultural System ◽  
Business Activity ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Agricultural Support ◽  
The Right ◽  
In The Beginning

The article aimed to determine whether the legal regulations in the field of the statutory and contractual pre-emption right of a tenant of agricultural real estate provide adequate protection to dependent owners in terms of the possibility of acquiring such land and conducting business activity on it. Secondly, the paper indicated legal problems related to statutory and contractual pre-emption right of a tenant of agricultural real estate and suggested how those problems could be handled. In the beginning, the considerations focused on the statutory pre-emption right for agricultural real estate. It referred to a subjective and objective scope of the right in question, and an attempt was made to determine whether the leased land can be sold to a third party due to the obligation to run a farm in person (only the sale contract allows for exercising the pre-emptive right). Failure to perform the indicated obligations might result in the case being referred to the court by the National Center for Agricultural Support. The second part of the article discussed the contractual pre-emption right for agricultural real estate. The author pointed out the possible concurrence of the statutory pre-emption right of the National Support Centre for Agriculture and the contractual pre-emption right of the lessee. The paper also referred to the problems related to implementing this right due to the requirements that the buyer must meet. In summary, the author, among other things, pointed out the fact that the importance of the statutory pre-emption right of the tenant of agricultural real estate had been diminishing over the years. The position of the lessee of agricultural land in terms of purchasing agricultural land is weakening. Currently, in practice, tenants may rarely use the pre-emption right. The author proposed the introduction of a provision to the Act on Shaping the Agricultural System on an additional consent of the National Support Centre for Agriculture for the sale of real estate under a lease.

NAČELO PRILAGOĐENOSTI USLUGE I PRAVO NA SLOBODAN IZBOR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Janković ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Service Sector ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Service Economy ◽  
Moral Dimension ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Right

The first step of a positive change in the system of service-legal relations is a change of view on the role and importance of service users. By providing opportunity to the service user to be an active and important member of the service-legal relationship, a far-reaching and universal value of humanization of the service economy sector is achieved. In such circumstances, the moral authority of the service law is realized through its justice and through voluntary obedience to the law of the subjects of the service-legal relationship. Precisely, this moral dimension of the rule of law, in the service economy sector is realized by applying the principles of service suitability and the right to free choice. In this regard, the paper analyzes the moral dimension and culture of the rule of law in the service sector, based on the principle of service suitability and the right to free choice, which are presented in the paper as guardians of justice of the service-legal norm.

REGULATION OF CIVIL LAW EMPLOYMENT OR EMPLOYMENT LAW?

2021 ◽  
Vol specjalny (XXI) ◽  
pp. 229-237
Author(s):  
Łukasz Paroń
Keyword(s):  
Gradual Increase ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Hourly Wage ◽  
Temporary Work ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Asking Questions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Employment Rights ◽  
Public Holidays

Performance of work on a basis other than an employment relationship takes various forms. Predominantly, it takes place based on civil law relationships, which are characterised by the principle of freedom of contract, which results in the possibility of freely shaping the content of any such legal relationship. However, recent years are marked by a gradual increase in regulations of employment other than based on contracts of employment, i.e. based on civil law contracts. Introducing a minimum hourly wage, limiting employment in trade on Sundays and public holidays, providing temporary work under civil law contracts or the much earlier widespread granting of employment rights to contractors in the putting-out system and, above all, granting the right to safe and hygienic working conditions to everyone who performs work justifies asking questions about future developments.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals Using General System Approach For Product Lifecycle Management Software Selection And Evaluation

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keh-Wen “Carin” Chuang ◽  
Kuan C. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Planning Process ◽  
General System ◽  
Product Lifecycle Management ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Software Selection ◽  
Product Lifecycle ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
The Right ◽  
Business Requirements ◽  
Lifecycle Management

Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) is the process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal. One of the toughest aspects of PLM implementations is choosing the appropriate software. In order to choose the right software that meets the business requirements, it is necessary to have a systematic view to serve as an evaluation guideline for advice from an independent third-party and that can guide decision makers through a structured process and understands the entire PLM market. This is an important aspect of the PLM assessment and planning process. This study built a systems model to fulfill the PLM software selection and evaluation needs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document