Uticaj savesnosti poverioca na posledice neosnovanih raskida ugovora

Abstract

Ovim člankom autorka nastoji da skrene pažnju na probleme koje u praksi stvaraju tzv. neosnovani raskidi, ali i na potrebu stvaranja jedinstvene prakse u pogledu njihovog sankcionisanja. U postojećoj doktrini na niz pitanja nema odgovora, a pojedini usamljeni pokušaji teorijskog objašnjenja ove pojave ostaju u senci pojedinačnih sudskih/arbitražnih sporova, bez težnje ka suštinskom rešavanju problema. Autorka u tekstu nastoji ukazati na neophodnost kvalifikovanja neosnovanog raskida kao povrede ugovora, ali i ispitivanja posledica koje iz te povrede nastaju. Pitanje koje, međutim, postavlja, a koje je i razlog nastanka ovog članaka jeste: da li savesnost poverioca utiče na posledice neosnovanih raskida, to jest da li ona predstavlja 'olakšavajuću okolnost'? Drugim rečima, da li poveriočeva nesavesnost jeste neophodan uslov za nastanak nekih posledica?.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the problems caused in practice by the so-called unfounded terminations (wrongful unilateral termination; termination without cause) and to emphasize the need to create an integral practice with respect to their sanctioning. Unfortunately, the doctrine does not offer sufficient solutions to above mentioned problem, and certain rare attempts to theoretically explain this phenomenon remain in the shadow of individual judicial/arbitration disputes. Still, it seems that no major attempts were made in order to solve the problem on a conceptual level. The author argues that unfounded termination should be qualified as a breach of contract and suggests that the consequences resulting from such a breach should be more precisely defined. Furthermore, the author seeks the answer to the question whether the creditor's good faith affects the consequences of unfounded terminations, or, in other words, whether the creditor's bad faith makes a necessary condition for the emergence of certain consequences. There is undoubtedly something wrong in the regime of unilateral termination of contract, especially because these terminations are often spoken of as 'terminations at own risk'.