This article discusses a situation in which international conventions that include norms of private law are applicable in situations other than those stipulated by norms that define their scope of application (ex proprio vigore). This involves various cases in which the domestic, EU or international legislator refers to the provisions of a given international convention (in a different international convention) and also cases in which provisions of an international convention are applied by virtue of the will of the parties to a civil law relationship. The author analyses individual situations searching for an answer to the question about the nature of provisions used and thus – adequate rules for their interpretation or for filling of gaps. In some situations, they retain their international law nature, while in others they become part of the domestic or EU law or a certain standard form contract which profiles the civil law relation.
The author analyses the premise for carrier liability for damage to the goods, the so-called “time relation in carriage.” The author tires to specify the time frame, relevant from the point of view of application of provisions on carrier liability for the condition of the goods to be carried, under national and international legislation that regulates the carriage contract. The author also analyses the problem of the burden of proof in a time relation in carriage under the general rule of the burden of proof in civil law and presumptions in regulations on the carriage contract. The relevant discussion enables conclusions on the legal nature of the time relation in carriage as the case of a non-causal normative relation.
The article discusses the issue of subcontracting in service contracts, with particular emphasis on the possibility of direct redress by creditors against subcontractors. Polish civil law stipulates a rule according to which the creditor may seek redress only from the debtor but not from subcontractors. Exceptions to this rule are provided for in few provisions (Article 738(2) or Article 840 CC) that introduce joint and several liability of the debtor and the subcontractor. In practise, this means that the creditor may directly pursue claims also from the subcontractor. International transport law has also adopted a measure of joint and several liability of the debtor (contracting carrier) and its subcontractor (operating carrier) for damage caused by the latter, allowing creditors to pursue claims directly from subcontractors. Such a measure shortens the settlement process, increases the efficiency of pursuing claims and introduces clarity in the debtor-subcontractor relationship. It reduces the risk of insolvency of the debtor, and in many cases allows him to avoid involvement in the dispute. At the same time, the author emphasises that the joint and several liability of the debtor and the subcontractor does not compromise the situation of the subcontractor. In the event that the debtor and the subcontractor are jointly and severally liable, the debtor’s claim is regressive, it arises only after payment of compensation to the creditor, which prevents the debtor’s enrichment at the expense of the subcontractor. In addition, this proposal reduces the number of lawsuits, thus cutting the time and costs associated with pursuing claims. In conclusion, the author proposes that similar measures be introduced to Polish civil law in a broader scope for certain service contracts. He sets out conditions for the joint and several liability of the debtor and his subcontractor, indicating the need to strike a balance between the interests of the creditor, the debtor and the subcontractor.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.