scholarly journals Nienależne świadczenie w polskim Kodeksie zobowiązań z 1933 r. na tle porównawczym

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-95
Author(s):  
Jan Halberda ◽  

Undue Payment in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933 as Compared with Other Regulations of That Time The present paper discusses the concept of undue payment as found in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933. The research is comparative in nature since it also explores the institution in question in other contemporary codes (Code Civil, ABGB, BGB and Obligationrecht), Roman law, and the Polish Civil Code of 1964 (1). The discussion is concerned with the framework of legal provisions on undue payment in the aforementioned sources (2). Furthermore, while applying a framework of the Roman condictiones the paper analyses the grounds of the action (3). It presents circumstances which allowed a payor to seek recovery of his payment (4–6) and those which precluded the claim (7). Then the paper gives an illustration of the scope of a payee’s liability (8). In his fi nal remarks, the author attempts to assess undue payment as regulated in the Code of Obligations (9).

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 63-94
Author(s):  
Jan Halberda

The present paper discusses the concept of undue payment as found in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933. The research is comparative in nature since it also explores the institution in question in other contemporary codes (Code Civil, ABGB, BGB and Obligationrecht), Roman law, and the Polish Civil Code of 1964 (1). The discussion is concerned with the framework of legal provisions on undue payment in the aforementioned sources (2). Furthermore, while applying a framework of the Roman condictiones the paper analyses the grounds of the action (3). It presents circumstances which allowed a payor to seek recovery of his payment (4–6) and those which precluded the claim (7). Then the paper gives an illustration of the scope of a payee’s liability (8). In his final remarks, the author attempts to assess undue payment as regulated in the Code of Obligations (9).


Prawo ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 321 ◽  
pp. 229-265
Author(s):  
Leonard Górnicki

Legal regulations of private partnerships in the Second Polish Republic following the partition periodThe author analyses the institution of private partnership in the Second Polish Republic from the entry into force in 1934 of the Polish Code of Obligations. He examines post-partition civil law in force in the central part of Poland and in Poland’s Eastern Borderlands, later in the southern part of Poland, and finally in the Western Territories. Thus he presents private partnership in Code civil des Français, also known as Code Napoléon — Napoleonic Code of 1804; in Svod Zakonov Rossiyskoy Imperii of 1832 in its 1914 edition with amendments and supplements; in Allgemeines Bürgerlisches Gesetzbuch ABGB, i.e. the Austrian Civil Code of 1811, with amendments; and the German Civil Code of 1896 — Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch BGB.The author’s objective is to demonstrate similarities and differences in the legal constructs of private partnership in the foreign legislation temporarily kept in force in Poland, emphasising the differences that constituted areal challenge for Polish codifiers in the Second Polish Republic. The article presents ahistorical-legal perspective and emphasises the significance of the author’s analysis of post-partition regulations of private partnerships in the Second Polish Republic to research into the current legislation in Poland in this respect. Juridical constructs as well as the content of the current regulations point to influences primarily of German legislation but also Austrian, French and Swiss legislations, with an evolution of views expressed in case-law and the doctrine, both Polish and foreign. Gesetzliche Regelungen zur Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts nach den Gesetzgebungen der Nachteilungszeit in der Zweiten Polnischen RepublikIm Artikel wurde die Institution der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts in der Zweiten Polnischen Republik bis zum Inkrafttreten des polnischen Schuldrechtsbuches im Jahre 1934 analysiert. Der Autor befasste sich mit der Gesetzgebung der Nachteilungszeit, die auf den zentralen Gebieten und im Ostpolen, dann auf den südlichen Gebieten, d.h. in Kleinpolen und im Teschener Schlesien sowie in den Westgebieten galt. Er stellte daher der Reihe nach die Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts im Code civil des Français auch Code Napoléon genannt — dem Kodex Napoleons aus dem Jahre 1804, im Swod Zakonow Rossijskoj Imperii aus dem Jahre 1832, nach der Ausgabe von 1914 mitsamt der Änderungen und Ergänzungen, im Allgemeinen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch ABGB, d.h. dem österreichischen Zivilgesetzbuch aus dem Jahre 1811, mit Änderungen und im deutschen Zivilgesetzbuch aus dem Jahre 1896 — dem Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch BGB dar.Ziel des Autors war, auf die Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede in der rechtlichen Konstruktion der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts in der zeitweilig in Polen in Kraft bleibenden fremden Gesetzgebung hinzuweisen, mit nachdrücklicher Hervorhebung dieser Unterschiede, die eine wahre Aufforderung für die polnischen Kodifikatoren in der Zweiten Polnischen Republik darstellten.Der Artikel hebt sowohl die geschichtsrechtliche Perspektive hervor, als auch betont den erkenntnisreichen Inhalt der durchgeführten Analyse der nachteilungszeitlichen rechtlichen Regulierung der Institution der Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts in der Zweiten Polnischen Republik für die Forschungen über die aktuelle diesbezügliche Rechtslage in Polen. Die juridischen Konstruktionen und der Inhalt der derzeit geltenden Vorschriften zeigen Einflüsse vor allem der deutschen Gesetzgebung, aber auch der österreichischen, französischen und sogar der schweizerischen mitsamt der Evolution der Ansichten der Rechtsprechung und der Rechtsdoktrin, sowohl der fremden, wie auch der polnischen.


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-328
Author(s):  
Jan Halberda ◽  

THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT AS REGULATED IN THE CODE OF OBLIGATIOON OF 1933 AND COMPARED WITH SIMILAR SOLUTIONS FOUND IN THE OTHER CODES F THE TIME The paper discusses the unjust enrichmennt as found in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933. The discussion is conducted in a comparative way and makes allusions to other regulations of the time (those detectable in the ABGB, Code Civil, BGB, Obligationenrecht). It also makes reference to the solution accepted in the Polish Civil Code of 1964. What was discussed was the very construction of unjust enrichment as found in the aforementioned regulations (1), grounds for the claims (2), the scope within which the duty to return the enrichment applied (3), the nature of the claim – whether it was autonomous or subsidiary (4). In his final remarks, the author tried to assess the discussed institution as regulated in the Code of Obligations (5).


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Sahib al-Fatlawi ◽  
Derar al-Daboubi

Abstract Unjust enrichment is considered one source of obligations, which stands in contrast to harmful acts as another source of obligation in the Jordanian Civil Code (JCC). The Unjust Enrichment Rule has developed historically from Roman law, through Islamic jurisprudence, then French law and jurisprudence to modern laws, such as that in Egypt influenced by French law. All these laws have recognised the Unjust Enrichment Rule as an independent source of obligation. Although the JCC was influenced by Islamic jurisprudence, Arab laws, such as the Egyptian Civil Code, and foreign-influenced Arab laws, its features distinguish it from other laws, either in terms of naming the source or the details related to its legal provisions. JCC’s special features need to be highlighted, defined and evaluated for comparison with other laws, i.e., proving beneficial when enacting a new JCC or defining it as unique rather than a copy of other precedent Arab laws.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-554
Author(s):  
George Vlavianos

Traditionally, inexecution of a contractual obligation in the civil law gives rise to an award in damages. This principle stems from Roman law of the classical period, which held to the maxim Nemo praecise cogi potest ad factum. In the post-classical period, however, the influence of ecclesiastical courts and the Christian notion of fidei laesio imposed itself on the classical pre-eminence of damages. Consequently, contractual obligations were often specifically enforced by secular courts based on the pacta sunt servanda doctrine of the canon law. Yet damages and specific performance, it is argued, are from the outset conceptually irreconcilable remedies. The full import of the nemo praecise principle prohibits all acts compelling the debtor to perform, whether such compulsion be physical or one of conscience. Pacta sunt servanda, on the other hand, maintains that that which has been promised should be performed, by force if necessary. In France, the mechanism of astreinte — a comminatory fine imposed on the debtor upon his failure to comply with a court order — is used to specifically enforce contractual obligations. This is done despite the fact that execution in kind is not expressly sanctioned by the Code civil. In Québec, courts have been slow to acknowledge the suitability of specific performance in the context of contractual obligations. The source of such hesitation is codally rooted, as the Civil Code of Lower Canada, in terms similar to the French Code civil, enunciates the supremacy of damages at article 1065. But this situation will change with the arrival of the new Civil Code of Québec. With this reorientation of the substantive law, Québec courts will be procedurally better equipped to enforce specific performance than their French counterparts. In essence, via the injunction, a court may physically compel a recalcitrant debtor. Despite its common law origins, the author contends that the injunction is not incompatible with the law of obligations in Québec. Any perceived incompatibility in the realm of contract law arises from the initial irreconcilability of damages and specific performance.


Prawo ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 324 ◽  
pp. 211-228
Author(s):  
Łukasz Baszak

Cancellation of donation in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933The article provides an analysis of the provisions of the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933 concerning cancellation of donation. The author discusses the provisions of Articles 364–369 of the Code, taking into account the impact of the various donation cancellation provisions included in regional codes and in other civil codes, i.e. the German Civil Code of 1896; Austrian Civil Code of 1811; Napoleonic Code of 1804; volume X, part 1 of the Russian Svod Zakonov Rossiyskoy Imperii of 1832; Swiss obligation law of 1911 and the draft Russian law of obligations of 1913.He also compares the final versions of the articles with their versions from the draft law of obligations by Dr Ernest Till and Prof Roman Longchamps de Berier, who were members of the Codification Commission. In addition, the author cites selected judgements of the Supreme Court dealing with the matter.Der Widerruf einer Schenkung im polnischen Schuldrechtsbuch aus dem Jahre 1933Der Aufsatz stellt die Beschlüsse des polnischen Schuldrechtsbuches aus dem Jahre 1933 be­treffend den Widerruf einer Schenkung dar. Besprochen wurden daher die Vorschriften der Artikel 364–369 dieses Gesetzbuches. Die Bestimmungen der einzelnen Artikel betreffend diese Institution wurden unter Berücksichtigung des Einflusses der einzelnen Vorschriften betreffend den Widerruf einer Schenkung, die in den Gesetzbüchern der Teilungsgebiete und in anderen Zivilgesetzbüchern, d.h. im deutschen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch BGB aus dem Jahre 1896, im österreichischen Allgemeinen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch ABGB aus dem Jahre 1811, im Napoleons Code civil aus dem Jahre 1804, im Buch 10 Teil I des russischen Swod Zakonow Rossijskoj Imperii aus dem Jahre 1832 sowie dem schweizerischen Obligationsrecht in der Fassung von 1911 und im Entwurf des russi­schen Verpflichtungsrechtes aus dem Jahre 1913 analysiert.Der letzte Wortlaut der einzelnen Artikel wurde auch mit ihrer Formulierung im einführenden Entwurf des Schuldrechtes von Prof. Dr. Ernst Till und Prof. Dr. Roman Longchamps de Berier, den Mitgliedern der Kodifikationskommission verglichen. Ergänzend zu der Analyse der einzelnen Vorschriften über den Widerruf einer Schenkung nannte der Autor auch ausgewählte Beschlüsse des Obersten Gerichtes aus diesem Bereich.


Author(s):  
Iosif Florin Moldovan

The matrimonial regime represents the entirety of the legal provisions concerning theproperty relations between spouses during marriage, as well as the legal documents theyconclude with other people, governing a (measurable) patrimonial asset.In addition to the legal community regime, with the adoption of the new RomanianCivil Code two new matrimonial regimes were introduced, namely the regime of propertyseparation and the regime of the conventional community.Where the two spouses opt for one of the other two regimes, instead of the legalcommunity regime, it is necessary that they should sign a marital agreement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-22
Author(s):  
Előd Bartis

The study constitutes a brief historical overview of the development of the contract of mandate, as regulated in Romanian law. Firstly, the roots of this contract in antiquity and in Roman law are discussed, and the evolution of its major characteristics are revealed. Subsequently, the author presents the regulations applicable to the contract of mandate under the first modern codifications of Romanian civil law in the Calimach and Caragea codes, the Commercial Code of Wallachia of 1840, the Romanian Civil code of 1864, the Commercial Code of 1887, and the Civil Code of 2009, currently in force. The author presents the major historic evolutions of the Romanian regulation pertinent to the nature of the contract, the parties, their remuneration, the effects of the contract inter partes and towards third persons as well as the changes in regulatory logic from the differentiation of commercial and civil mandate to the unification of the two institutions in the Civil Code of 2009.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document