scholarly journals The legal insignificance of the financial coverage at the bill of exchange and the cheque

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-178
Author(s):  
Svetislav Janković
Keyword(s):  
Similar Position ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Bill Of Exchange

Due to the identical personal structure, the bill of exchange and the cheque have a common feature regarding the drawer's cover on a banking account which is administrated by the drawee. It seems that sufficiency of adequate funds, which should cover the drawer's order from these instruments, doesn't have any legal significance for the drawee and the acceptor. At first glance the position of drawee and acceptor is different because the drawee's obligation is also not derived from the bill of exchange; however, the acceptor has an obligation due to his acceptance of the drawer's order. However, at the stage of collection, drawee and acceptor have a similar position regarding financial cover by drawer's account. Regardless of whether there is financial coverage, the legal position of the drawee and acceptor remains unchanged, because their position could be changed only through their legally relevant will, manifested in the instrument as such.

SUBROGATION IN INSURANCE CONTRACT

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1985-1991
Author(s):  
Tatjana Dimov
Keyword(s):  
Insurance Contract ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Property Insurance ◽  
Insured Person ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Insured Loss ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insurance Agreement ◽  
Responsible Person

Subrogation is a legal right characteristically reserved by property insurers. Subrogation occurs in property insurance and in some particular cases of liability insurance. The doctrine of subrogation operates to ensure protection of certain specific principles relevant to the property insurance including the principle of indemnification whereby the compensation received is no more and no less than a full indemnity for the insured loss or damage suffered by the insured due to loss occurrence, the principle of non-cumulation in terms of claims under the same insurance contract and the principle which excludes claiming indemnity from the person who is legally responsible for causing the loss, because otherwise the insurance contract may be an unjustified source of profit for the insured as the insured would get double recovery or paid out twice for the same claim.With the payment of the reimbursement from an insurance agreement on the insurer, all rights that the insured has towards the persons responsible for the damage up to the amount of the paid compensation are transferred. With the subrogation, the insurer takes up the legal position of the insured person and exercises his right to subrogation from the rights of the insured (derivative acquisition of the right), so that the insurer exceeds the claims in scope and amount as the insured had towards the perpetrator.Subrogation is the right of the insurer, it is not his obligation. The insurer is not obliged to use this right to transfer the rights to the responsible person.The notion of subrogation is often associated with the concept of insurance regression. But there is a difference between these two terms: recourse is the right of the insurer to claim the amount of compensation that he has paid to the insured (injured parties) from the harmful person, while subrogation is the transfer of the right (the claim for damages to the responsible person) from the insured to the insurer up to the amount of the compensation paid on the basis of an insurance contract. The right to recourse is a consequence of the existence of subrogation, i.e. transfer of the rights of the insured person to the responsible person, and which is reached by the law itself.Тhe subrogation doctrine also operates to ensure that the defendant or the person who is legally responsible for the loss shall not be absolved of liability under the civil law. Namely, the perpetrator should bear the consequences of his liability for the caused damage, and therefore the legislator of the insurer (as one of the contractual parties in insurance contract) has recognized the right what he has paid the injured party (as the contractual party in the insurance contract called the insured) to calm from the perpetrator.Furthermore, subrogation doctrine operates to ensure profit for the insurance companies whereby the reimbursement funds the claims or sum insured are covered from additionally grow; therefore, this doctrine is of great importance to the insurers.

СТИМУЛИРОВАНИЕ ПРАВОПОСЛУШНОГО ПОВЕДЕНИЯ ОСУЖДЕННЫХ В МЕСТАХ ЛИШЕНИЯ СВОБОДЫ В СОВЕТСКОМ И СОВРЕМЕННОМ РОССИЙСКОМ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВЕ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanislav Kuzmin ◽  
Irina Polyanskaya
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Personal Time ◽  
Labor Camps ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Executive System ◽  
The Right ◽  
Stimulation Of

Статья подготовлена на основе использования нормативных правовых актов и архивных документов различных исправительно-трудовых лагерей, указанных в сносках, что позволяет судить о территориальных рамках источников. Исследуется генезис становления и развития практики стимулирования правопослушного поведения осужденных посредством норм, не изменяющих их правовое положение в период отбывания уголовного наказания в виде лишения свободы на различных этапах функционирования исправительно-трудовой (уголовно-исполнительной) системы. На основе изученных документов можно сделать вывод, что в основу дифференциации поощрительных норм, распространявшихся на осужденных, положены следующие критерии: 1) поощрения, не изменяющие условия отбывания уголовного наказания в виде лишения свободы; 2) поощрения, изменяющие условия содержания осужденных. Из ранее применявшихся мер поощрений в современном уголовно-исполнительном законодательстве используются следующие: объявление благодарности с занесением в личное дело, материальное поощрение, право на дополнительную посылку, передачу и др. Среди других мер поощрения можно выделить увеличение времени ежедневной прогулки до двух часов для осужденных, содержащихся в строгих условиях отбывания наказания в колониях и тюрьмах. Также законодатель предусмотрел возможность проводить праздничные и выходные дни за пределами учреждения для осужденных, содержащихся в колониях-поселениях.The article is prepared on the basis of the use of normative legal acts and archival documents of various correctional labor camps mentioned in the footnotes, which allows to judge the territorial scope of the sources. The Genesis of formation and development of practice of stimulation of law-abiding behavior of condemned by means of the norms which are not changing their legal position during serving of criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment at various stages of functioning of correctional labor (criminal Executive) system is investigated. On the basis of the studied documents, it can be concluded that the basis for the differentiation of incentive norms that apply to convicts are the following criteria: 1) incentives that do not change the conditions of serving a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment; 2) incentives that change the conditions of detention of convicts. Of the previously applied measures of incentives in the modern penal legislation the following are used: the announcement of gratitude with entering in personal time, material encouragement, the right to an additional parcel, transfer, etc. Among other measures of encouragement it is possible to allocate increase in time of daily walk to two hours for condemned detainees in strict conditions of serving of punishment in colonies and prisons. Also, the legislator provided the opportunity to spend holidays and weekends outside the institution for convicts held in colonies-settlements.

Property in Human Body Parts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Human Body ◽  
First Principles ◽  
The Political ◽  
Body Parts ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Law

This chapter surveys the current legal position concerning property in bodies and bodily materials. Of especial relevance in the current age of advanced genetic and other bio technologies, it looks beyond property in bodies and their materials ‘as such’ to consider also (a) the availability of rights of personal and intellectual property in objects incorporating or derived from them, and (b) the reliance on quasi-property rights of possession and consent to regulate the storage and use of corpses and detached bodily materials, including so-called ‘bio-specimens’. Reasoning from first principles, it highlights the practical and conceptual, as well as the political and philosophical, difficulties in this area, along with certain differences in the regulatory approach of European and US authorities. By way of conclusion, it proposes the law of authors’ and inventors’ rights as simultaneously offering a cautionary tale to those who would extend the reach of property even further than it extends currently and ideas for exploiting the malleability of the ‘property’ concept to manage the risks of extending it.

Two Dogmas of Egalitarianism

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Den Uyl ◽  
Douglas B. Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Similar Position

AbstractIt is more than clear that in our previous works—Norms of Liberty and The Perfectionist Turn—we are opposing what is generally understood as egalitarianism in political philosophy.  Our purpose here is to clarify our opposition by showing that our rejection of egalitarianism cannot be successfully accused of being inconsistent with morality itself. We believe that discussing what we call “two dogmas of egalitarianism” will go some distance in accomplishing that end. These “dogmas” can be stated as follows: (1) The burden of proof for any deviation from equality in ethics rests upon the advocate of inequality; and (2) One's position on the natural equality (or inequality) of human beings requires a similar position in one’s ethical conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document