RAZBREMENILNI RAZLOGI POSLOVNE ODŠKODNINSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Robin, Mitja

| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

First page > Show document

Show document

Title:	RAZBREMENILNI RAZLOGI POSLOVNE ODŠKODNINSKE ODGOVORNOSTI
Authors:	ID Robin, Mitja (Author) ID Samec Berghaus, Nataša (Mentor) More about this mentor...
Files:	UNI_Robin_Mitja_2013.pdf (744,47 KB) MD5: F9F3B3CD85FF72E703AFD9C41BFAB640
Language:	Slovenian
Work type:	Undergraduate thesis
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:	Institut razbremenilnih razlogov poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti je v slovenski pravni teoriji deležen številnih, precej različnih razlag. Določba 240. člena Obligacijskega zakonika (OZ) določa, da je dolžnik prost odgovornosti za škodo, če dokaže, da ni mogel izpolniti svoje obveznosti oziroma da je zamudil z izpolnitvijo obveznosti zaradi okoliščin nastalih po sklenitvi pogodbe, ki jih ni mogel preprečiti, ne odpraviti in se jim tudi ne izogniti. Na podlagi te določbe so različni avtorji opredelili poslovno odškodninsko odgovornost v slovenskem pravu tako za krivdno oz. subjektivno kot za objektivno odgovornost. Avtorji, ki se zavzemajo za koncepcijo krivdne odgovornosti, to utemeljujejo z dejstvom, da zakon ne določa, da bi se dolžnik lahko razbremenil zgolj zaradi zunanjih okoliščin, tako kot je določeno pri razbremenitvi objektivne odgovornosti, temveč lahko pridejo v poštev tudi notranje okoliščine. Bistveno je obvladovanje okoliščin, ki lahko preprečijo pravilno izpolnitev pogodbe in ne njihov izvor. Se pa mnenja posameznih avtorjev razlikujejo po načinu presoje ravnanja dolžnika glede obvladovanja škodljivih okoliščin. Nekateri menijo, da mora dolžnik ravnati kot dober gospodar, kar pomeni z ustrezno skrbnostjo, ki se presoja po abstraktnih merilih, medtem ko drugi izhajajo iz zmožnosti in prizadevanj konkretnega zavezanca, in ne po abstraktnem merilu. Novejša teorija se sicer bolj nagiba k objektivni odgovornosti, utemeljeno na razmejitvi med notranjimi in zunanjimi tveganji (riziki). Notranja tveganja so tista, ki izvirajo iz notranje sfere dolžnika in jih ta lahko obvladuje oziroma jih mora obvladati, zunanja tveganja pa so tista, ki so zunaj sfere pravnega subjekta in jih ta ne more oziroma jih ni dolžan obvladati. Dolžnik se lahko razbremeni poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti le zaradi razlogov, ki so zunaj njegove sfere, medtem ko za vzroke iz notranje sfere odgovarja, tudi če jih ne more vedno preprečiti. Pregled novejše sodne prakse je pokazal, da takšni razlagi (vsaj glede profesionalnih oseb) sledijo tudi sodišča. Diplomsko delo zaključujem s sklepom da je opredelitev poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti bodisi kot subjektivne bodisi kot objektivne pretežno irelevantna, zaradi očitnega razlikovanja od določb OZ, na katerih se sicer utemeljujeta subjektivna in objektivna (neposlovna) odškodninska odgovornost, in tudi zaradi tega, ker bo končni rezultat v večini primerov enak ne glede na koncepcijo. Teoretično sicer lahko dolžnika razbremenijo odgovornosti tudi okoliščine iz notranje sfere, toda v takem primeru bo razbremenitev odgovornosti precej težja. Za profesionalne osebe domala nemogoča. Zakon kot odločilno dejstvo ne navaja izvora škodljivih okoliščin ampak dolžnikovo obvladovanje teh okoliščin (preprečiti, odvrniti, izogniti). Menim, da moramo dolžnikovo aktivno ravnanje glede obvladovanja presojati po abstraktnih merilih – standardu dobrega gospodarja za laike in standardu dobrega strokovnjaka za profesionalne osebe. Od slednjih se zahteva večja skrbnost ravnanja kot od laikov, zato bo že sicer težka razbremenitev poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti, v njihovem primeru še otežena in dejansko nemogoča zaradi notranjih okoliščin. Ob takšni razlagi menim, da je nepomembna opredelitev poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti kot subjektivne ali objektivne.
Keywords:	poslovna odškodninska odgovornost, razbremenitev poslovne odškodninske odgovornosti, ekskulpacija, kršitev pogodbe, subjektivna odgovornost, objektivna odgovornost
Place of publishing:	Maribor
Publisher:	[M. Robin]
Year of publishing:	2013
PID:	20.500.12556/DKUM-41865
UDC:	347.4/.5(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:	4560171
NUK URN:	URN:SI:UM:DK:CEERP1IP
Publication date in DKUM:	13.09.2013
Views:	3918
Downloads:	681
Metadata:
Categories:	PF
:	Copy citation

Average score:	(0 votes)
Your score:	Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:

Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:	English
Title:	EXCULPATION OF CONTACTUAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
Abstract:	In this thesis I analyze the exculpation from contractual liability for damages in Slovenian law. Article 240 of Slovenian Code of obligations (OZ) states, that a party is free from liability for damages, if he or she proves that the contract in question could not be fulfilled, due to the events which have occurred after the contract had been agreed, and could not be prevented or avoided. Based on the article 240, many authors tried to classify contractual liability for damages either as fault-based liability or strict liability (regardless of fault). On one hand, authors that consider contractual liability for damages a fault-based liability argue, that a party may be free from liability, not just by the events, which have occurred outside of his or her sphere of business, but also those that occurred inside his or her sphere, as article 240 of OZ clearly differentiates itself from force majeure as defined in article 153 of OZ which defines exculpation from strict liability (ex delictu). Source of events that prevented the fulfillment of contract is not decisive, but actions of a party with which the party could have prevented these events are. On the other hand, authors that consider contractual liability for damages a strict liability argue, that article 240 of OZ does not mention fault at any point, which concludes that a contractual liability for damages is a strict liability. Authors explain their view by differentiating between the internal and external sphere of business. A party is responsible for events that occur in his or her internal sphere and must be held liable, even if these events cannot be prevented, as the nature of contract demands the end result, on which the other party relies. Exculpation will be successful only in the case of force majeure. This approach is more common with modern legal theory and has also been adopted by the courts. I conclude my thesis with a statement that classification of contractual liability for damages in Slovenian law is mostly irrelevant, as the provision of article 240 of OZ, clearly differentiates itself from provisions that define both fault-based and strict liability. Article 240 of OZ demands that a party takes all possible actions to prevent or avoid event that could endanger the fulfillment of contract. We should judge these actions regarding standards of care i.e. by comparing actions of individual in question with those that a reasonably prudent and cautious person, with same basic characteristics and who normally enters into such contracts as the one in question, would perform. This argument inevitably leads to the fact, that events which occur in party’s internal sphere will usually prevent exculpation; especially in case if a party is a professional, in which case that might even be impossible. This shows that the end result will usually be the same, regardless of whether we classify contractual liability for damages as fault-based or strict liability.
Keywords:	contractual liability for damages, exculpation from contractual liability for damages, exculpation, breach of contract, fault-based liability, strict liability.

Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)

0 - 0 / 0

There are no comments!

Back