Predugovor obezbeđen kaparom kod Ugovora o prometu nepokretnosti u pravu Srbije

Abstract

Zaključenju ugovora o prometu nepokretnosti u pravnoj praksi često prethodi predugovor, a ugovara se i kapara, jednako i uz predugovor i uz konačni ugovor. Obe ustanove, predugovor i kapara, u teoriji i praksi otvaraju brojna pitanja. U tekstu je analizirano o čemu se stranke moraju saglasiti da bi nastao predugovor, u kojoj se formi zaključuje i naročito koje su pravne posledice neizvršenja obaveze da se zaključi glavni ugovor. Kod poslednjeg, autor smatra da je rasprostranjen stav da će u tom slučaju sudska presuda zameniti konačni ugovor moguće prihvatiti samo ako se poveže sa prinudnim izvršenjem kondemnatorne odluke kojom se naređuje zaključenje ugovora, a ne kao neposredno dejstvo takve odluke. U analizi kapare ugovorene uz predugovor u prometu nepokretnosti, razmatrana su otvorena pitanja, uključujući dozvoljenost i celishodnost takvog ugovaranja. U praksi se često kapara u predugovoru ugovara za neispunjenje obaveze iz konačnog ugovora, a ne predugovora. Sudovi s pravom takvo ugovaranje nište. Kapara uz predugovor, istina, nema sve karakteristike (funkcije) kapare, na primer, ona se po prirodi stvari ne može uračunati u ispunjenje. Ispitivano je i, u svetlu nedoumica u sudskoj praksi, da li su pravila o kapari i odustanici dispozitivna, odnosno mogu li stranke ugovoriti drugačije. Opšti je zaključak rasprave da, mada je predugovor složena i kontroverzna ustanova i mada se razlozi predugovaranja mogu ostvariti drugim ustanovama (odložnim uslovom ili rokom na primer), s obzirom na tradiciju može ostati ustanova ugovornog prava, ali je korisno preispitati i precizirati pravila o pojedinim pitanjima, kao što su dejstva i prinudno ostvarenje i druge posledice. Što se kapare tiče, ma koliko da je arhaična i uporedno pomalo zaboravljena ustanova, u pojedinim slučajevima još uvek može biti korisna, posebno zato što se unapred daje a ne duguje, i to ako se dopusti da je stranke, u granicama pravnog poretka, prilagode svojim potrebama.

In the legal practice a preliminary contract often precedes the conclusion of the contracts on the transfer of immovable property, but deposit is also frequently stipulated both along with the preliminary contract and the final contract. These two concepts open numerous questions both in theory and in practice. The author analyses the details the parties have to agree upon if the preliminary contract is to emerge, the form of conclusion and especially the legal consequences of omission to execute the obligation to conclude the main contract. With respect to the latter, his position is that the idea that in such case a judicial judgement can replace the main contract can be accepted only if it is linked to the enforced execution of the decision ordering such conclusion and not as direct effect of the judgement. Analysing the deposit along the preliminary contract on the transfer of immovable property, open issues were considered, including the permissibility and the usefulness of such contracting. In practice, the deposit is frequently stipulated in the preliminary contract against omission to fulfil the obligation from the final contract rather than from the preliminary contract. This is not allowed by the law and the courts often pass such verdicts. The deposit along the preliminary contract actually does not have all the characteristics (functions) of the standard deposit: e. g. it cannot by definition be included into fulfilment of the obligation. In the light of the jurisprudence dilemmas, the author investigated whether the norms on the deposit and dedit are dispositional - namely, whether the parties may stipulate a different design. The general conclusion is that, in spite of the fact that the preliminary contract is a complex and controversial concept, and although the reasons for the preliminary contracting could be achieved by other means (e. g. deferred condition or time-limit), with respect the tradition, it can remain an institution of contract law, but it is useful to re-examine and specify the rules on certain issues, for example, effects and enforced execution and other consequences. With respect to the deposit, no matter how it seems archaic and globally abandoned institution, in certain cases it may still be useful, especially because it is given in advance and not owed and especially if the parties are allowed, within the limits established by the legal order, to adjust it to their needs.