Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Rejent

Authors help

  1. 2 Podleś M.

  2. 1 Denga M.

Years help

  1. 1 2024

  2. 1 2020

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Zakres roszczeń uprawnionego z umowy przedwstępnej w razie braku możliwości zawarcia umowy przyrzeczonej

100%
Podleś M.
Rejent
|
2024
|
issue 8 (400)
42-54
EN
In view of the arguments presented in judiciary and the doctrine, the view that it is permissible for the holder of a preliminary contract to claim under the general rules (Article 471 of the Polish Civil Code) in the situation where exercising the «stronger effect» by the holder is not possible for reasons for which the debtor is responsible should be regarded as accurate. This allows the holder to ultimately cla-im damages within the limits of the positive interest of the party, including the damage and lost benefits resulting from the failure to conclude the promised agreement. The appropriateness of such an approach is persuaded by the axiological argumentation that the legal system should not give preference to actions oriented towards breach of contract and deprive the holder of protection resulting from the general principles of contractual liability (Article 471 of the Civil Code). A situation in which, for reasons attri-butable to the obliged party under the preliminary contract, it becomes impossible to conclude the final agreement, does not fall within the literal notion of merely „evading” the conclusion of the final agree-ment from Article 390 of the Civil Code. In addition, in terms of argumentation, the regulation on lia-bility for consequent impossibility of performance for reasons for which the debtor (here the obligor under the preliminary contract) is responsible may be used. The development of case law indicated in the article may be of significant importance from the point of view of the instructions provided by no-taries to persons entering into a preliminary contract.
2

Rejestr beneficjentów rzeczywistych w Polsce i w Niemczech

63%
Podleś M., Denga M.
Rejent
|
2020
|
issue 12 (356)
32-45
EN
The register of beneficial owners, in accordance with provisions of Directive 849/2015, is an important element of the legal order in both Poland and Germany. Its importance has been strengthened by the threat of severe sanctions, both on the part of entities obliged to disclose data in register, as well as other participants of entities which are obliged by law to report infringements, including notaries (obliged institutions). As a natural consequence of the fact that the regulations being compared are an implementation of a common EU directive, the Polish and German regulations described are characterized by a number of similarities. The effectiveness of these provisions as well as the practice of the sanctions applied can be evaluated in the long term. In the compared areas concerning the register of beneficial owners in both countries, there is a significantly easier access to the data collected in Poland, without the need to demonstrate any legal interest in this area. Moreover, in Poland - unlike in Germany - in relation to many individuals, whose data are already disclosed in the register of entrepreneurs (members of representation bodies, partners), the notification obligation has been duplicated, thus adding another obligation to entrepreneurs.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.