Pregled robe i reklamacija u svetlu odgovornosti prodavca za materijalne nedostatke stvari

Abstract

Pravo merodavno za ugovor o prodaju se, prema članu 23 ZMPP, primenjuje i na pitanja pravne prirode, uslova i posledica izostanka pregleda i reklamacije robe. Posle ratifikacije Bečke konvencije o prodaju robe, jugoslovensko pravo poznaje dva pravna režima ugovora o prodaji -konvencijski i onaj iz ZOO. U pogledu pravne prirode neophodnosti kontrole i stavljanja prigovora, ističe se da nije reč o obavezi u klasičnom smislu (Pflicht, obligation) već da se radi o specifičnoj dužnosti u sopstvenom interesu (Obligenheit, incombance) za čije označavanje je predložen termin "nužnost". Bečka konvencija, usled činjenice da su njena pravila rezultat političkog kompromisa predstavnika različitih pravnih sistema, sadrži vrlo neprecizne norme o nužnosti pregleda i reklamacije. Pravila domaćeg prava (ZOO. Opšte uzanse za promet robom) su preciznija. Pitanja u vezi s pregledom robe regulisana na isti način i za građansku u za trgovačku prodaju, dok se rok za reklamaciju razlikuje.

International Private Law, also applies to issues of a legal nature, the conditions and consequences of not inspecting or claiming for goods. After the ratification of the Vienna Convention on the Sale of Goods, Yugoslav law recognises two legal regimes for contracts of sale - the conventional regime and the one from the Code on Obligations. These regimes are very similar therefore, one may assume that our courts will in all cases apply the provisions of the Code on Obligations, to which they are accustomed. In terms of the legal nature of the necessity of control and submitting objections, it is stated that this does not refer to an obligation in the classical sense (Pflicht, obligation) but that it refers to a specific duty in one's own interest (Obligenheit, incombance), for which the term "necessity" has been proposed. In applying the rules whereby necessities are established, one must take into account the nature of their wording, which excludes automatic application without establishing the (non)existence of the will of the parties in this respect. Due to the fact that its rules are the result of a political compromise among the representatives of different legal systems the Vienna Convention contains very imprecise norms on the necessity of inspecting goods and claiming for them. The rules of domestic law (Code on Obligations, General Usances for the Sale of Goods) are more precise. Matters in connection with the inspection of goods are regulated in the same way both for civil and for commercial sales, whereas the deadline for claiming differs. In a civil sale, it is 8 days and, in commerce, the standard "without delay" applies, which should be interpreted as "on the day of inspection".