Search results

1

Rozliczenia między stronami związków partnerskich na podstawie przepisów o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu

100%

Sobczyk M.

Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego

|

2015

|

vol. 24

|

issue 2

381-408

EN

This article is devoted to the complex and difficult problem of pecuniary settlements between cohabitants or parties in similar relationships. One party often contributes to the partner’s property significantly, especially finances construction of a house on the partner’s land or gives him or her money to buy such a house, where they plan to live together. The party makes such patrimonial sacrifices because of the relationship existing between them and with the clear purpose of its continuation. Therefore this financial support can be regarded as a performance rendered in contemplation of continuation of their relationship. However, after several years they split up and the giver seeks restitution of the performance, so the question arises on what ground? Cohabitation is not regulated in Polish law, which is why the courts must search for the proper provisions to solve the dispute. One of the solutions is the application of the concept of performance rendered for an intended purpose that has not been achieved. It can be said that due to the fact that the relationship is finished the purpose of the performance is subverted. This concept, codified in art. 410 § 2 of the Polish civil code, has roots in Roman law in condictio causa data causa non secuta. It is applied also in foreign legal systems, which enables us to make some comparisons. In this paper I analyze judicial decisions and views of doctrine concerning the claim for restitution and its preconditions. I come to final conclusion that the concept of condictio causa data causa non secuta is applicable where other remedies cannot be applied or are very inconvenient. Its application requires the existence of a special kind of agreement described as the “legal basis of the performance”, which, however, is not a contract. One party confers a benefit to another to achieve a purpose which is at least recognizable for the recipient and approved by him at least per facta conludentia. This purpose usually refers to the further continuation of their relationship. Condictio is applied rather in exceptional cases where the amount of the contribution to the partner’s property is significant and constitutes a valuable and lasting benefit.

2

Świadczenie niegodziwe – trudne dziedzictwo rzymskiej inspiracji

63%

Dajczak W.

Studia Iuridica

|

2017

|

vol. 72

101-119

PL

Incorporating the rules inspired by the Roman condictio ob turpem causam into modern regulations of unjustified enrichment provokes criticism. Such regulations are diversified into several models but mostly invoke controversies. The main goal of this paper is evaluating these critical opinions and doubts repeated in legal discourse using historical and comparative methods. Author focuses on five issues: usefulness of condictio ob turpem causam in the light of works of ius commune jurists; doubts concerning the principle in pari turpitudine melior est conditio possidentis; different approach of various European legislators to the idea of condictio ob turpem causam; relation between regulations of unjustified enrichment and unenforceability of agreements contrary to the o law and good customs; importance of the restitution of payments contrary to the law and good customs for today’s legal practice. The conclusions of such analysis allow to admit that doubts concerning the continuation of the Roman condictio ob turpem causam are justified. From the other side, in times of multicultural societies and increasing number of legal regulations the growth of disputes resulted from the payments contrary to law and good customs can be observed. The rejection of repayment based on the contrary to the objective good faith offers – according to the author – the best compromise between weak points of Roman condictio ob turpem causam and challenges of modern practice. In the legal reasoning it is expressed by the maxime „no one shall be heard, who invokes his own guilt”.Incorporating of this maxime into the unjustified enrichment is all the more justified when higher could be in legal practice doubts concerning the acceptability of rejection of restitution of the payment with has been made without legal ground but in the contrary to the principle of good faith.

3

Dochodzenie roszczenia z tytułu klauzuli abuzywnej na podstawie przepisów o nienależnym świadczeniu

63%

Nycz M. A.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2020

|

vol. 18

|

issue 3

75-91

EN

The article deals with the mutual relations between wrongful contractual provisions (unfair clauses) and undue performance. The former was introduced into the Polish civil law by an amendment made to the Polish Civil Code in connection with the 93/13/EC Directive entry into force. In turn, the institution of undue performance has long been recognised in Poland as the method of pursuing claims under the unfair clauses. Mutual relations of provisions pertaining to the above-mentioned notions still have not been thoroughlyexamined. Nonetheless, the simultaneous analysis of the provisions reinforces the statement that the undue performance claim may be useful in pursuing claims for enrichment arising from performance of service based on unfair clauses. To be exact, condictio indebiti claim shall be invoked to successfully pursue the claim. On the other hand, only a few scholars and courts deem so. The reason why this type of undue performance claim is applied lies within the pain of ineffectiveness for setting forth unfair clauses. Moreover, the provisions ought to be interpreted in a way that reflects the European Union law application.

PL

Artykuł dotyczy wzajemnej relacji instytucji niedopuszczalnych postanowień umownych (klauzul abuzywnych) i nienależnego świadczenia. Pierwsza z nich została wprowadzona do polskiego prawa cywilnego poprzez nowelizację polskiego kodeksu cywilnego w związku z wejściem w życie dyrektywy 93/13/WE. Z kolei instytucja nienależnego świadczenia od dawna uznawana jest za metodę dochodzenia roszczeń z tytułu klauzul abuzywnych w Polsce. Wzajemne relacje przepisów dotyczących wymienionych pojęć nie zostały jeszcze dokładnie zbadane. Niemniej jednak jednoczesna analiza tych przepisów wzmacnia stwierdzenie, żeroszczenie o nienależne świadczenie może być użyteczne w dochodzeniu roszczeń o wzbogacenie wynikające z wykonania świadczenia na podstawie nieuczciwych klauzul. Dokładnie rzecz ujmując, w celu skutecznego dochodzenia roszczenia należy powołać się na condictio indebiti. Tak uważa jednak mniejszość. Powodem, dla którego właściwą podstawą dochodzenia roszczeń jest condictio indebiti, jest sankcja bezskuteczności zastrzeżenia klauzul abuzywnych. Ponadto przepisy powinny być tak interpretowane, aby uwzględnić kontekst unijny.

Refine search results

1 Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego

1 Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

1 Studia Iuridica

1 Dajczak W.

1 Nycz M. A.

1 Sobczyk M.

1 2020

1 2018

1 2015

Rozliczenia między stronami związków partnerskich na podstawie przepisów o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu

Świadczenie niegodziwe – trudne dziedzictwo rzymskiej inspiracji

Dochodzenie roszczenia z tytułu klauzuli abuzywnej na podstawie przepisów o nienależnym świadczeniu