Neįmanomumo įvykdyti prievolę įtaka sandorių galiojimui
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date Issued |
|---|
2009 |
Straipsnyje analizuojamos teisinės pasekmės, kylančios sandorio šalims susitarus dėl to, kas neįmanoma arba neegzistuoja, keliant klausimą, ar pagrįstai Lietuvos teisėje principas Impossibilium nulla obligatio est aiškinamas kaip lemiantis absoliutų sandorio negaliojimą. Atsižvelgiant į šiuolaikinės teisės raidos tendencijas, siūloma atsisakyti Lietuvos teismų praktikoje suformuoluotos teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo taisyklės, pagal kurią sandoris yra niekinis (prieštaraujantis imperatyviai įstatymo normai), jeigu sandorio sudarymo metu prievolę įvykdyti yra neįmanoma. Straipsnyje siūloma lanksčiai traktuoti Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso 6.3 straipsnio 4 dalyje įtvirtintą nuostatą, pripažįstant galimybę sąžiningai sutarties šaliai, kurios teisėti lūkesčiai buvo pažeisti dėl neįmanomo įvykdymo, reikalauti teigiamų (pozityvių) nuostolių atlyginimo pagal sutartinės atsakomybės taisykles.
The word "nullity" is not used in this article. The author takes a view that Lithuanian Civil Code does not establish a clear rule, which would unamiguously lead to the conclusion that a legal transaction, the performance whereof is impossible, is null and void. Therefore, the author believes that the courts have the possibility to treat such cases in a flexible manner in order to provide the aggrieved party with the possibility to claim his or her positive interest (expectation damage) as opposed to merely a negative interest (reliance damage) in cases where the other party knew or should have known about the impossibility of performace. Such practice would be in line with the general tendency of modern law to avoid the use of the technique of the nullity of legal transactions and to allow, where appropriate, other remedies, for instance, a remedy for non-performance. Alternatively, the party, which has promised an impossible performance, could be exempted from the liability upon proving that the contract was concluded under the influence of essential mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the obligation or as to the possibility of performace thereof. However, such an excuse would not be allowed if, upon proper construction of the contract, it was established that the party's mistake is due to his or her own gross negligence or if the mistaken party had taken the risk of the mistake or should be seen as ought to have taken such a risk. In such a case the contract could not be avoided and the general remedy for non-performance should prevail.