20.500.12556/DKUM-19495 SODELOVALNA DOLŽNOST UPNIKA - PRIMERJAVA SLOVENSKE, MEDNARODNE IN BRITANSKE UREDITVE THE COMPARISON OF THE DUTY TO MITIGATE UNDER SLOVENIAN, INTERNATIONAL AND BRITISH LAW Sodelovalna dolžnost upnika (ang. duty to mitigate) je načelo, s katerim se limitira višina odškodnine, ki jo mora dolžnik povrniti upniku za povzročeno škodo. V skladu s tem načelom mora oškodovana stranka storiti razumne ukrepe, da bi se škoda zmanjšala, sicer lahko druga stranka zahteva zmanjšanje odškodnine v višini izgube, ki bi se ji z razumnimi ukrepi lahko izognila. V praksi se pogosto zgodi, da oškodovana stranka ne stori ničesar, da bi preprečila povečanje že nastale škode, čeprav je v njeni moči, da bi lahko to storila z razumnimi ukrepi. Njena aktivnost je omejena na terjanje odškodnine, čim se da ugotoviti obseg nastale škode, ki je morda tudi zaradi njene pasivnosti večja kot bi bila, če bi ravnala v skladu s svojo sodelovalno dolžnostjo. Iz načela dobre vere izhaja, da za škodo, ki bi se ji oškodovana stranka lahko izognila, ni kompenzacije. Vendar pa sodelovalna dolžnost ne pomeni dolžnosti v pravem pomenu besede, ki bi narekovala sankcijo v primeru kršitve. Upnik lahko mirno ignorira svojo dolžnost, a v tem primeru ni upravičen do poplačila celotne škode, ki mu je nastala, če bi se lahko delu le-te izognil. Gre za pomemben element korekcije načela popolne odškodnine, kadar je v upnikovi sferi možnost zmanjšanja škode, pa ostane pasiven. Pri tem ni pomembno, če je bil upnik v izvrševanju sodelovalne dolžnosti uspešen, pomembno je, da je ravnal skrbno in uporabil vse razumne ukrepe. Kateri so ti ukrepi in kako daleč sega ta dolžnost je stvar presoje od primera do primera (ang. case-by-case analysis), pri čemer je v veliko pomoč sodna praksa. Ureditev sodelovalne dolžnosti upnika je v slovenski, mednarodni in britanski ureditvi zelo podobna. V poštev pride le pri eni vrsti civilnih sankcij, pri odškodnini. Razlike so predvsem v bolj ali manj natančnih dikcijah, na primer glede obsega zmanjšanja odškodnine. Razlike so tudi glede povrnitve stroškov, nastalih s storitvijo razumnih ukrepov in glede možnosti sporazumne izključitve te dolžnosti. Teorija in praksa zavzemata različna stališča glede vprašanja, ali je potrebno storiti razumne ukrepe za zmanjšanje škode, če še ni prišlo do kršitve pogodbe, možne rešitve pa se razlikujejo tudi glede na ureditev. Duty to mitigate is the principle which limits the recovery of damages. It requires an aggrieved party claiming damages to take reasonable steps to mitigate losses and, if he fails to do so, the breaching party may claim a reduction in the damages recoverable in the amount the loss should have been mitigated. It is often the case that the aggrieved party just sits back and waits while the losses accumulate and then sues for damages, although he could take reasonable measures to reduce the loss. This duty is an expression of the principle of good faith, under which there should be no compensation for avoidable loss. However, duty to mitigate is not enforceable and does not constitute real obligation in the sense that the party who claims damages will himself be liable for breach of contract if he fails to mitigate. Party is entitled to stay passive and as a result he is precluded to recover any loss which could have been prevented. This duty is a significant element of correction of the principle of full compensation. It is not important whether the party was successful in exercising this duty, it only has to be prudent and to take all reasonable measures. Which measures are reasonable and what is the extent of this obligation depends on the case-by-case analysis. The settled case-law is in great help in determining the criterion of reasonableness. The regulation of the duty to mitigate is similar in Slovenian, international and British law. It applies only to one of the remedies, to claim for damages. There are differences in the more or less precise wording of this duty, e.g. in the respect of the extent of damages that should be reduced. There are also differences regarding the reimbursement for expenses and concerning the exclusion of this limitation in the agreement. The authorities and case-law differ in the interpretation of the question whether the party is obliged to take reasonable measures to mitigate the loss even when the breach has not occurred yet. Possible solutions to this dilemma differ in the light of different regulations. sodelovalna dolžnost upnika kršitev pogodbe obseg odškodnine zmanjšanje odškodnine razumni ukrepi skrbnost povrnitev stroškov duty to mitigate the breach of contract the extent of damages the reduction of damages the reasonable measures diligence reimbursement for expenses true true false [P. Weingerl] Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Diplomsko delo 2011-07-21 18:38:36 2011-07-25 11:21:09 2022-04-13 15:25:40 2023-12-25 03:20:22 2011 0 Maribor 0 0000-00-00 NiDoloceno NiDoloceno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 34(043.2) 4246571 URN:SI:UM:DK:LZ4VRUPT UNI_Weingerl_Petra_2011.pdf UNI_Weingerl_Petra_2011.pdf 1 CF55D9EF1D818D775F7752C007DEB61F 115311da787e23f683cf154ece5957de12579a1360d3ecfcb7cdd4b494dc4807 63e5c0bb-7c05-11eb-bb7a-00155d0001ca 20.500.12556/dkum/af2378a2-0ebb-4e8f-a55e-3dec6e50043c https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=23604 Pravna fakulteta 0 0 0