Publication: Atsakomybę ribojančių ar pašalinančių susitarimų aiškinimo ir galiojimo probleminiai aspektai
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2011
Authors
Lazauskaitė, Rūta
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Straipsnyje analizuojamos atsakomybę ribojančių ar pašalinančių sutarties sąlygų aiškinimo ir galiojimo problemos. Pirmame straipsnio skyriuje aptariamos atsakomybę ribojantiems susitarimams aiškinti naudojamos sutarčių aiškinimo taisyklės, contra proferentem principo kilmė, raida ir taikymo sąlygos, taip pat nagrinėjami šio principo taikymo ypatumai aiškinant atsakomybę ribojančius susitarimus. Antroje straipsnio dalyje tiriami atsakomybę pašalinančių sutarties nuostatų negaliojimo pagrindai, pateikiama jų klasifikacija, analizuojamas sąžiningumo principas kaip priemonė atsakomybę pašalinančios sąlygos galiojimui apriboti. Straipsnyje siekiama nustatyti, koks atsakomybę ribojantis susitarimas laikytinas nesąžiningu.
This article reviews the origin and the evolution of the contra proferentem rule as well as the prerequisites for use of this principle. If the exemption clause remains ambiguous after use of all other contractual interpretation methods and the contra proferentem rule cannot be applied because of the impossibility to identify the party who proposed such a contractual provision, in the author’s opinion, it would be fair and reasonable to construe this exemption clause against contractual party which seeks to rely on such a clause in order to avoid or restrict one’s liability. Further, the author analyses the grounds of invalidity of exemption clauses, presents the classification of such grounds, examines the principle of fairness (reasonableness) as a remedy for the limitation of exemption clauses’ validity. The exemption clause should be treated as unfair if it contradicts the basic purpose of the contract, allows a party to default fundamental contractual obligations in such a manner that other party in principle does not receive what it expected from the contract.
This article reviews the origin and the evolution of the contra proferentem rule as well as the prerequisites for use of this principle. If the exemption clause remains ambiguous after use of all other contractual interpretation methods and the contra proferentem rule cannot be applied because of the impossibility to identify the party who proposed such a contractual provision, in the author’s opinion, it would be fair and reasonable to construe this exemption clause against contractual party which seeks to rely on such a clause in order to avoid or restrict one’s liability. Further, the author analyses the grounds of invalidity of exemption clauses, presents the classification of such grounds, examines the principle of fairness (reasonableness) as a remedy for the limitation of exemption clauses’ validity. The exemption clause should be treated as unfair if it contradicts the basic purpose of the contract, allows a party to default fundamental contractual obligations in such a manner that other party in principle does not receive what it expected from the contract.
Description
Keywords
Sutarčių aiškinimas, Sutarčių galiojimas, Interpretation of contracts, Contra proferentem