Pravni (be)značaj pokrića kod menice i čeka

Abstract

S obzirom na to da imaju istovetnu personalnu strukturu, menica i ček, i pored razlika u pogledu svrhe (plaćanje, obezbeđenje, kreditiranje), imaju zajedničku osobinu u pogledu trasantovog pokrića kod trasata. Čini se da je postojanje pokrića pravno nevažno za položaj trasata i akceptanta. Za razliku od trasata koji nema obavezu isplate, akceptant je ima, ali se obojici pravni položaj određuje ne spram pokrića, nego spram sopstvenog pristanka na ustanovljavanje obaveze. Dok trasat (kako kod menice, tako i kod čeka) ne daje pristanak na trasantov nalog, dotle ga akceptant (kod menice) daje, stvarajući za sebe obavezu isplate koja je samostalna i nezavisna od pokrića. U prvom delu rada, menica i ček se funkcionalno određuju u vezi sa ugovorom o prodaji i asignacijom. Zatim se razmatra apstraktnost u građanskom pravu, a posebno povezanost ustanove stipulacije (iz starog rimskog prava) i menične radnje akceptiranja. Naposletku, prikazuje se odnos osnovnih meničnih lica prema pokriću.

Due to the identical personal structure, the bill of exchange and the cheque have a common feature regarding the drawer's cover on a banking account which is administrated by the drawee. It seems that sufficiency of adequate funds, which should cover the drawer's order from these instruments, doesn't have any legal significance for the drawee and the acceptor. At first glance the position of drawee and acceptor is different because the drawee's obligation is also not derived from the bill of exchange; however, the acceptor has an obligation due to his acceptance of the drawer's order. However, at the stage of collection, drawee and acceptor have a similar position regarding financial cover by drawer's account. Regardless of whether there is financial coverage, the legal position of the drawee and acceptor remains unchanged, because their position could be changed only through their legally relevant will, manifested in the instrument as such.