Issues concerning illegal contractual provisions, as well as the extent of the effects of a judicial decision that recognizes the provision of standard contracts illegal, causes great controversy, both theoretical and practical. This is important because this question concerns the constitutional principle of protection of consumers. The primary objective of the law concerning of illegal provisions is healing of legal relations arising from irregularities in the contracting process, related to the contractual advantage one of the parties. Due to the increasingly common practice used by entrepreneurs in standard contracts with consumers, it is necessary to their judicial review. It aims to eliminate from standard contracts such provisions that grossly violate the interests of consumers, putting them in a much worse position in relation to a person who uses such a standard contract. But the question is whether, in circumstances where the specific contractual provision will be criminalized and the court will prohibit a particular entrepreneur using it in dealings with consumers, such a decision also involves other entrepreneurs. In other words, if though they are not party to the trial, they are obliged to adhere to the judgment. We are dealing here with the opposition of the rule of law to the court for every person, including entrepreneurs, to the principle of consumer protection, which is really executed. The essence of the problem boils down to the concept of extended validity, so that the art. 47943 Civil Procedure Code, which provides for such an effect applies only to the entrepreneur who was a party (defendant) in trial for the recognition provisions of standard contracts illegal, whether it should be assumed broad interpretation, so that inscribing of a clause in the register of the President of the Trading Standard Office has certain effects also in relation to other entrepreneurs who use patterns agreement. The problem takes on added significance if we consider the possibility of punishment in antitrust proceedings businesses using abusive clauses that have been inscribed into the register.
The suspension of energy supply is one of the farthest-reaching powers of energy entrepreneur with whom a recipient had signed an agreement. Therefore, it is not right which can be used in every situation, but must be met certain conditions, even if the basis for suspension of supply is the lack of payment by the recipient. It may rise dispute between the trader and the recipient concerning the validity of cutting-off delivery of electricity. It is necessary to determine whether the action of the energy trader was in accordance with the law, which was preceded by all the required law actions, including whether it has been preserved obligation to provide information in relation to the contractor. It is not sufficient that the recipient is in default for a specified period of payment for energy, but must be notified in writing of its intention to terminate the contract. In addition, it must be designated an additional two-week deadline for payment of outstanding and current liabilities. It’s important to define the conditions of keeping by the operator of the energy information’s obligation, including the starting date for calculating the additional period set for payment of arrears. This raises doubt whether the principle derived from Article. 61 of the Civil Code can be applied directly to the energy law, which aims to protect recipients. This is more important that consumers more often than not are recipients of electricity, so far the weaker party of a contract for the sale and delivery of electricity.
The subject of consideration is the admissibility of the cessation of contractual penalties in the event of the lessor's withdrawal from a tenancy agreement, as a result of the tenant's failure to pay a security deposit against the lessor’s future rentals under the contract. Additional reser-vation of contractual penalty may relate only to non-performance or undue performance of a non-monetary obligation and therefore can’t be related to non-performance or undue perfor-mance of a monetary obligation (art. 483 § 1 k.c.). It’s important that the security deposit – in contrast to other forms of security – has a monetary nature. If you consider that this method of payment determines the nature of the security deposit as a cash payment and the tenant fails to pay the it or doesn’t restore the security to the original amount, then the provision for a contractual penalty for withdrawal from a tenancy agreement for that reason would be invalid. The question is if the nature of the rendition determines the manner in which it is fulfilled, or the purpose for which the debtor pays a specified amount of money. This issue may raise seri-ous doubts, but the automatic recognition of a security deposit as a cash rendition, although – literally speaking, possibly to consider – could lead to unlikely conclusions, given the nature and purpose of this form of warrant, especially in comparison to other forms. Consequently, in certain situations, the purpose and the essence of the rendition, its economic character, should be explored, since those elements determine the nature of the remdition within the meaning of art. 483 § 1 k.c.
Liability of the Carrier in the Road Carriage of Goods for Theft and Robbery Under Polish Law and the CMR Convention RESUMECarrier's liability in the carriage of goods by road is a fundamental part of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), which regulates international transport, and the Polish Act -Transport Law, which regulates domestic transport. Carrier is responsible for total or partial loss of goods or for their damage (that is one of the socalled "damages in the substance of the shipment") that occurred in the time between goods receipt and its delivery as well as for the delay of delivery.The carrier is exempt from this liability if the damage to the shipment resulting from certain events (called exonerating circumstances), including circumstances that the carrier could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent (Article 17 paragraph 2 of the CMR Convention) or vis maior (Article 65 paragraph 2 of the PrPrzew). Here appears a significant difference between the Convention and the Polish Act, as these exemption circumstances are not identical. Already at this point it may be pointed out that the Polish act introduced a more far-reaching prerequisite releasing the carrier from liability, as a result of which in the case of application of the Polish act it's much more difficult for the carrier to release himself from the obligation to redress the damage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.