Приказ основних података о документу
Uticaj prevare koja potiče od sajemca na punovažnost ugovora o jemstvu i prava jemca - žrtve prevare
Legal effects of the fraud originating from the co-surety on the validity of the surety contract and/or the rights of the surety: The victim of the fraud
dc.creator | Dabić, Snežana | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-11T15:15:09Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-11T15:15:09Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0003-2565 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1232 | |
dc.description.abstract | Kada je prevarom sajemca naveden na zaključenje ugovora o jemstvu, jemac se može naći u prilično nezavidnoj poziciji jer je krug sredstava koje uspešno može da upotrebi da se zaštiti vrlo ograničen. Naime, kod prevare trećeg, punovažnost ugovora se može osporiti samo izuzetno: ako je saugovarač kriv za prevaru ili je ugovor dobročin, što je vrlo diskutabilno kada je reč o ugovoru o jemstvu. Još su manji izgledi za poništenje pozivanjem na pravila o zabludi: zabluda o solventnosti dužnika (kao najčešća) predstavlja zabludu o motivu koja je samo izuzetno pravno relevantna. Konačno, pravo na naknadu štete od sajemca - autora prevare može biti ograničenog dometa: najpre, postoji rizik da će šteta moći da se naknadi; potom, može se doći i do apsurdne situacije da prevareni jemac ne može odbiti regresni zahtev od sajemca - autora prevare (koji je platio dug), ali bi nakon toga mogao da se koristi pravom na naknadu štete. | sr |
dc.description.abstract | In case a surety concludes a contract due to fraudulent acts of his co-surety, he may find himself in a rather unenviable position. Remedies for his protection are very limiting. Namely, third parties' fraud only exceptionally leads to the annulment of the contract: if the contracting party is guilty of fraud; or the contract is gratuitous, which is very questionable for surety contract. The chances for annulment are even fewer if we apply the rules of mistake: mistake as to the debtor solvency represents a mistake as to the motif which is only exceptionally legally relevant. Finally, the right to ask damages from co-surety can also be of limited nature: firstly, there is a risk that the damages cannot be compensated; secondly, an absurd situation may occur that the victim of the fraud cannot reject the contribution claim from the co-surety but he may later on ask damages from him. | en |
dc.publisher | Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd | |
dc.rights | openAccess | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.source | Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu | |
dc.subject | zabluda o solventnosti dužnika | sr |
dc.subject | punovažnost ugovora | sr |
dc.subject | prevara od trećeg | sr |
dc.subject | odnos između sajemaca | sr |
dc.subject | jemstvo | sr |
dc.subject | validity of the contract | en |
dc.subject | third party's fraud | en |
dc.subject | the relation between co-sureties | en |
dc.subject | surety | en |
dc.subject | mistake as to the solvency of the debtor | en |
dc.title | Uticaj prevare koja potiče od sajemca na punovažnost ugovora o jemstvu i prava jemca - žrtve prevare | sr |
dc.title | Legal effects of the fraud originating from the co-surety on the validity of the surety contract and/or the rights of the surety: The victim of the fraud | en |
dc.type | article | |
dc.rights.license | BY | |
dc.citation.epage | 145 | |
dc.citation.issue | 1 | |
dc.citation.other | 68(1): 126-145 | |
dc.citation.rank | M24 | |
dc.citation.spage | 126 | |
dc.citation.volume | 68 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5937/AnaliPFB2001128D | |
dc.identifier.fulltext | https://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/197/1229.pdf | |
dc.identifier.rcub | conv_508 | |
dc.type.version | publishedVersion |