Приказ основних података о документу

Third parties' fraud and conclusion of onerous contracts

dc.creatorDabić, Snežana
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T14:51:43Z
dc.date.available2024-03-11T14:51:43Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn0354-3501
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/950
dc.description.abstractTradicionalni je zahtev u uporednom pravu da prevara potiče od saugovarača, kako bi uticala na punovažnost teretnih ugovora. Prevara od strane trećeg samo izuzetno rađa pravo na poništenje - ako saugovarač za nju zna ili mora znati. Na prvi pogled se čini da je ovo ograničenje razumno postavljeno i da na adekvatan način miri suprotstavljene interese žrtve prevare i njenog saugovarača. Ali, njegovi nedostaci upravo dolaze do izražaja u slučajevima u kojima postoji mnogo veći rizik uticaja trećih lica na volju saugovarača, kao što je, primera radi, zaključenje ugovora u korist trećeg. Da li i kakvo dejstvo ima prevara koja potiče od beneficijara onda kada saugovarač za nju nije niti znao niti morao znati? Pored toga, značajna uloga koju pojedina treća lica imaju u procesu zaključenja ugovora, istupajući na strani jednog saugovarača, uticala je na to da ih sudovi u uporednom pravu izuzmu iz kategorije 'trećih' i njihovu prevaru imputiraju tom saugovaraču, kao da ju je sam učinio, iako za nju nije niti znao niti morao znati. Od krucijalnog značaja jeste pitanje: koja se lica ne smatraju trećim u domenu odredaba o prevari?.sr
dc.description.abstractIt is a traditional requirement in comparative law that fraud should be an act of a contracting party, in order to affect the validity of onerous contracts. Fraudulent behavior of third parties will only exceptionally give right to the annulment - if the contracting party knew or should have known of it. On the face of it, the rule seems to be reasonable and that it adequately reconciles conflicting interests of victims of fraud and contracting party. However, its weaknesses emerge especially in cases where a much higher risk of influence of third parties exists, for example, in conclusion of contracts in favor of third parties. Does the fraudulent behavior of the beneficiary affect the validity of the contract? In addition, when certain third parties have a significant role in the conclusion of the contract, protecting the interests of only one party, the comparative practice shows that courts do not consider them as 'third parties and impute the consequences of their fraudulent behavior to that contracting party, even though it neither knew nor should have known of the fraud. Therefore, the question: with respect to the provisions regulating fraud, which persons cannot be considered as third parties?.en
dc.publisherUdruženje pravnika u privredi Srbije, Beograd
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcePravo i privreda
dc.subjecttreća licasr
dc.subjectteretni ugovorisr
dc.subjectprevarasr
dc.subjectodgovornost za štetusr
dc.subjectmane voljesr
dc.subjectthird partiesen
dc.subjectonerous contractsen
dc.subjectliabilityen
dc.subjectfrauden
dc.subjectdefects of consenten
dc.titleDejstva prevare koja potiče od trećeg pri zaključenju teretnih ugovorasr
dc.titleThird parties' fraud and conclusion of onerous contractsen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseBY
dc.citation.epage107
dc.citation.issue10-12
dc.citation.other55(10-12): 80-107
dc.citation.rankM51
dc.citation.spage80
dc.citation.volume55
dc.identifier.rcubconv_2231
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Документи

ДатотекеВеличинаФорматПреглед

Уз овај запис нема датотека.

Овај документ се појављује у следећим колекцијама

Приказ основних података о документу