Sutartinė atsakomybė: grįsta kalte ar be kaltės?

The author investigates the necessity of fault as the prerequisite of contractual civil liability. The author makes the conclusion that Lithuanian law, following most of the countries belonging to the civil law tradition and contrary to the common law systems, as well as Vienna convention, UNIDROIT principles, PECL and DCFR, begins with the theory that fault is a requirement for contractual liability. Strict liability in Lithuanian law is the exception of this general rule. Nevertheless, the author argues that the general rule is subject to important exceptions, and the practical importance of these exceptions is as great as the cases falling within the general rule. In case of no agreement of the parties or any provision of law regarding fault as the necessary prerequisite for contractual liability, in Lithuania, similar to France, the distinction between the obligations to produce a given result and the obligations to use reasonable care is essential: according to Article 6.200(4) of the Lithuanian Civil Code (hereinafter – the CC), a party in breach of an obligation to use best efforts is liable for fault. The author argues that this legal rule is a special rule with respect to the legal rule implemented in Article 6.256(4) of the CC, therefore, a businessman in breach of an obligation to use best efforts is also liable for fault (as the fault is presumed, a businessman can escape civil liability after proving that there is no fault in their actions). As the Lithuanian CC does not contain any general rule indicating that the liability for breach of an obligation to produce a given result is strict, the author argues that liability of a businessman in breach of such an obligation is strict according to Article 6.200(4) of the CC, and that of a party that is not a businessman is based on fault. The author draws the attention to the fact that there are contracts constituting the borderland between strict liability and liability based on fault: the obligations of such contracts are complex and the breach of one duty might lead to strict liability, and of other – based on fault. The author makes the conclusion that, following the civil law systems and contrary to the common law systems and the regime implemented in the analysed compulsory and soft law international documents, Lithuanian law distinguishes the third type of obligations – obligations to guarantee. The breach of such an obligation results in the special type of liability – guarantee liability, which offers special remedies applicable without fault and in certain limited cases – compensation of damages, which requires fault. Systemic, teleological, document analysis and comparative legal methods have been used in the article.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama kaltės kaip sutartinės civilinės atsakomybės sąlygos reikšmė, siekiant atsakyti į klausimą, ar kaltė yra būtina sutartinės atsakomybės sąlyga, ar atsakomybė yra griežta (be kaltės). Daroma išvada, kad nors pagal Lietuvos teisės išeities poziciją, analogišką didžiajai daliai kontinentinės teisės tradicijos valstybių, sutartinė civilinė atsakomybė kyla už kaltę, esti daugybė šios pagrindinės taisyklės išimčių, savo svoriu prilygstančių pagrindinei taisyklei. Pagrindžiama, kad atsakymą į iškeltą klausimą visų pirma lemia prievolės esmė – vienų prievolių atveju atsakomybė kyla už kaltę, kitų – be kaltės. Argumentuojama, kad Lietuvos pozityviosios teisės nuostata, įtvirtinanti verslininko sutartinę civilinę atsakomybę be kaltės, vaidina tik antraeilį vaidmenį sprendžiant dėl griežtos atsakomybės ar atsakomybės už kaltę taikymo. Atkreipiamas dėmesys, kad esti ribinių atvejų, kai atsakomybė už tai pačiai sutarčių rūšiai priskiriamos sutarties pažeidimą gali būti tiek griežta, tiek už kaltę. Pagrindžiama, kad esti atvejų, kai vieną prievolę sudaro skirtingo pobūdžio pareigos; tokiu atveju būtina aiškintis, kokia konkrečiai pareiga pažeista, nes už vienos pareigos pažeidimą atsakomybė kyla esant kaltei, už kitos – be kaltės

Bendraskolio pareigos atlyginti žalą apimtis taikant deliktinę atsakomybę: solidarioji ar dalinė atsakomybė?

Among the most complicated issues in the law of delict, in the case of multiple debtors, is to determine the scope of each co-debtor’s liability. The rule of proportional liability clearly favours debtors more than the aggrieved party. And, on the contrary, the solidary liability best suits the interests of the aggrieved party as the risk of co-debtor’s insolvency is transferred to the debtors. Furthermore, in the latter case, the debtors who attempt to allocate the scope of their liability among themselves and fail to reach an agreement have to undergo two legal procedures: the first concerning the compensation to the creditor, and the second concerning the determination of the scope of their liability among themselves. Adequate balancing of the interests of the two parties (the debtor and the creditor) lies among the major tasks of tort law. Therefore, the law should seek specific rules instrumental in determining the scope of the co-debtor’s liability in the case of multiple debtors. The application of the rule of solidary liability is based on the assumption that individuals whose joint actions inflicted damage must compensate it together. However, it raises the question of how the joint actions should be perceived—whether as a subjective participation in the damage infliction process or more generally? Is it right to apply the rule of proportional liability in regard to the aggrieved party when the damage was caused as a result of unlawful actions by all individual debtors who had no agreement concerning either these unlawfully actions or the infliction of damage, or in certain cases did not even know about the illegal actions of the others? What answer could be given in case when all defendants acted in a risky way and each one of them could have caused the damage, but it is clear that only one of them (or some) in fact did cause it, but due to the lack of evidence it remains unclear whose actions were in fact damaging? It is not easy to provide answers to these and other questions that occur in cases of multiple debtors when trying to define the scope of their liability. However, the cases of multiple debtors can be classified by reasonably justifying the application of a particular rule for deciding the scope of liability to compensate the damage in regard to each of these groups. By referring to the doctrine and practice of other countries as well as the analysis of the positive law and court practice in Lithuania, this article aims to provide advice on the legal instruments to be used in order to justify the application of proportional or solidary liability in cases of multiple debtors. Systemic, teleological and comparative legal methods have been used in the article.Vienas pagrindinių klausimų skolininkų daugeto deliktinės atsakomybės atveju – nustatyti kiekvieno bendraskolio pareigos atlyginti padarytą žalą apimtį. Solidarioji atsakomybė labiau atitinka nukentėjusiojo interesus nei dalinė atsakomybė, tačiau yra daug didesnė našta pažeidėjams. Siekiant tinkamai subalansuoti nukentėjusiojo ir pažeidėjo interesus, turi būti rastos taisyklės, kurios padėtų nustatyti, kuri atsakomybės rūšis – solidarioji ar dalinė – konkrečiu atveju turi būti taikoma. Straipsnyje, pagal pasirinktus kriterijus į grupes skirstant skolininkų daugeto situacijas deliktinės atsakomybės atvejais, siekiama argumentuotai pagrįsti atsakomybės apimtį lemiančios taisyklės taikymą kiekvienoje iš šių grupių

Multiple debtors case : the extent of the tortious duty to compensate damage-solidary or proportional liability?

Vienas pagrindinių klausimų skolininkų daugeto deliktinės atsakomybės atveju – nustatyti kiekvieno bendraskolio pareigos atlyginti padarytą žalą apimtį. Solidarioji atsakomybė labiau atitinka nukentėjusiojo interesus nei dalinė atsakomybė, tačiau yra daug didesnė našta pažeidėjams. Siekiant tinkamai subalansuoti nukentėjusiojo ir pažeidėjo interesus, turi būti rastos taisyklės, kurios padėtų nustatyti, kuri atsakomybės rūšis – solidarioji ar dalinė – konkrečiu atveju turi būti taikoma. Straipsnyje, pagal pasirinktus kriterijus į grupes skirstant skolininkų daugeto situacijas deliktinės atsakomybės atvejais, siekiama argumentuotai pagrįsti atsakomybės apimtį lemiančios taisyklės taikymą kiekvienoje iš šių grupių. Reikšminiai žodžiai: Dalinė atsakomybė; Deliktinė atsakomybė; Skolininkų (pažeidėjų) daugetas; Solidarioji atsakomybė; (debtors); Multiple tortfeasors; Multiple tortfeasors (debtors); Proportional liability; Solidary liability; Tort liabilityAmong the most complicated issues in the law of delict, in the case of multiple debtors, is to determine the scope of each co-debtor's liability. The rule of proportional liability clearly favours debtors more than the aggrieved party. And, on the contrary, the solidary liability best suits the interests of the aggrieved party as the risk of co-debtor's insolvency is transferred to the debtors. Furthermore, in the latter case, the debtors who attempt to allocate the scope of their liability among themselves and fail to reach an agreement have to undergo two legal procedures: the first concerning the compensation to the creditor, and the second concerning the determination of the scope of their liability among themselves. Adequate balancing of the interests of the two parties (the debtor and the creditor) lies among the major tasks of tort law. Therefore, the law should seek specific rules instrumental in determining the scope of the co-debtor's liability in the case of multiple debtors. The application of the rule of solidary liability is based on the assumption that individuals whose joint actions inflicted damage must compensate it together. However, it raises the question of how the joint actions should be perceived - whether as a subjective participation in the damage infliction process or more generally? Is it right to apply the rule of proportional liability in regard to the aggrieved party when the damage was caused as a result of unlawful actions by all individual debtors who had no agreement concerning either these unlawfully actions or the infliction of damage, or in certain cases did not even know about the illegal actions of the others? What answer could be given in case when all defendants acted in a risky way and each one of them could have caused the damage, but it is clear that only one of them (or some) in fact did cause it, but due to the lack of evidence it remains unclear whose actions were in fact damaging? It is not easy to provide answers to these and other questions that occur in cases of multiple debtors when trying to define the scope of their liability. However, the cases of multiple debtors can be classified by reasonably justifying the application of a particular rule for deciding the scope of liability to compensate the damage in regard to each of these groups. By referring to the doctrine and practice of other countries as well as the analysis of the positive law and court practice in Lithuania, this article aims to provide advice on the legal instruments to be used in order to justify the application of proportional or solidary liability in cases of multiple debtors

Pure economic loss as a special kind of loss in Lithuanian tort law

In tort law, including Lithuanian tort law, damage usually is divided into two types: pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The concept of non-pecuniary damage has recently become a focus of attention of Lithuanian legal researchers. However, it has to be noted that the issues related to the concept of pecuniary damage remain scarcely analysed. As a result, the unique type of pecuniary damage, i.e. the damage of purely economic character, has received no attention whatsoever in Lithuanian tort law. It is usually believed that the defence of the values of purely material character fall into the sphere of contractual law, while tort law is not concerned with the protection of these values. However, in the course of the development of social relations it has become apparent that in the present-day society personal financial losses have become equally important to the cases of actual damage to a person or a property. On the other hand, the fear to overextend the limits of tort law and, thus, limit the persons’ freedom to act, coupled with the different nature of the values protected by tort law provide grounds for the position that relatively abstract financial interests and absolute values or relative personal values should be protected in different ways. Referring to the doctrine and practice of foreign countries as well as the results of the analysis of Lithuanian positive law and court practices, in this article we aim at giving an answer to the question of where and how the ambit of protection under the tort law in the cases of damage of purely economic character should be defined. Systemic, teleological and comparative legal methods are applied in the analysis

Contractual liability: for fault or strict?

The author investigates the necessity of fault as the prerequisite of contractual civil liability. The author makes the conclusion that Lithuanian law, following most of the countries belonging to the civil law tradition and contrary to the common law systems, as well as Vienna convention, UNIDROIT principles, PECL and DCFR, begins with the theory that fault is a requirement for contractual liability. Strict liability in Lithuanian law is the exception of this general rule. Nevertheless, the author argues that the general rule is subject to important exceptions, and the practical importance of these exceptions is as great as the cases falling within the general rule. In case of no agreement of the parties or any provision of law regarding fault as the necessary prerequisite for contractual liability, in Lithuania, similar to France, the distinction between the obligations to produce a given result and the obligations to use reasonable care is essential: according to Article 6.200(4) of the Lithuanian Civil Code (hereinafter - the CC), a party in breach of an obligation to use best efforts is liable for fault. The author argues that this legal rule is a special rule with respect to the legal rule implemented in Article 6.256(4) of the CC, therefore, a businessman in breach of an obligation to use best efforts is also liable for fault (as the fault is presumed, a businessman can escape civil liability after proving that there is no fault in their actions).As the Lithuanian CC does not contain any general rule indicating that the liability for breach of an obligation to produce a given result is strict, the author argues that liability of a businessman in breach of such an obligation is strict according to Article 6.200(4) of the CC, and that of a party that is not a businessman is based on fault. The author draws the attention to the fact that there are contracts constituting the borderland between strict liability and liability based on fault: the obligations of such contracts are complex and the breach of one duty might lead to strict liability, and of other - based on fault. The author makes the conclusion that, following the civil law systems and contrary to the common law systems and the regime implemented in the analysed compulsory and soft law international documents, Lithuanian law distinguishes the third type of obligations - obligations to guarantee. The breach of such an obligation results in the special type of liability - guarantee liability, which offers special remedies applicable without fault and in certain limited cases - compensation of damages, which requires fault. Systemic, teleological, document analysis and comparative legal methods have been used in the article

Pure economic loss as a special kind of loss in Lithuanian tort law

In tort law, including Lithuanian tort law, damage usually is divided into two types: pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The concept of non-pecuniary damage has recently become a focus of attention of Lithuanian legal researchers. However, it has to be noted that the issues related to the concept of pecuniary damage remain scarcely analysed. As a result, the unique type of pecuniary damage, i.e. the damage of purely economic character, has received no attention whatsoever in Lithuanian tort law. It is usually believed that the defence of the values of purely material character fall into the sphere of contractual law, while tort law is not concerned with the protection of these values. However, in the course of the development of social relations it has become apparent that in the present-day society personal financial losses have become equally important to the cases of actual damage to a person or a property. On the other hand, the fear to overextend the limits of tort law and, thus, limit the persons' freedom to act, coupled with the different nature of the values protected by tort law provide grounds for the position that relatively abstract financial interests and absolute values or relative personal values should be protected in different ways. Referring to the doctrine and practice of foreign countries as well as the results of the analysis of Lithuanian positive law and court practices, in this article we aim at giving an answer to the question of where and how the ambit of protection under the tort law in the cases of damage of purely economic character should be defined. Systemic, teleological and comparative legal methods are applied in the analysis

Civilinės atsakomybės praktikumas

Civilinės atsakomybės seminarų praktikumas yra dėstymo metodinė priemonė, skirta teisės studijų studentams padėti pasirengti civilinės atsakomybės seminarams. Praktikumas sudarytas iš atskirų seminarų planų pagal atskiras temas. Kiekvieno seminaro planas sudarytas iš temos turinį atskleidžiančių teorinių žinių, kontrolinių klausimų, skirtų pasitikrinti, ar tema išmokta gerai, praktinių užduočių bei literatūros sąrašo. Praktikumas taip pat pravers teisės praktikams bei apskritai teise besidomintiems asmenims, siekiantiems įgyti žinių civilinės atsakomybės srityje arba jas patobulinti

Lyginamoji sutarčių teisė : Lietuva europiniame kontekste : [mokslo studija]

Recenzentai: dr. J. Kiršienė (VDU); dr. D. Vasarienė (MRU)Knygoje lyginamuoju aspektu analizuojami aktualiausi Lietuvos ir kitų Europos valstybių sutarčių teisės klausimai, Lietuvos teisės pozicija vertinama negriežtosios teisės (angl. soft law) instrumentų (PECL, DCFR, UNIDROIT principų) kontekste. Siekiama išsiaiškinti Lietuvos sutarčių teisės vietą europiniame kontekste, įvertinti dabartinio sutarčių teisinio reglamentavimo privalumus ir trūkumus, atskleisti Lietuvos sutarčių teisėje kylančias esmines problemas, įvertinti jų sprendimo būdų pagrįstumą, patikimumą, atitiktį šiuolaikinės teisės raidos tendencijoms ir nubrėžti galimas tolesnės Lietuvos sutarčių teisės raidos gaires. Knygoje aptariamos sutarčių teisės vienodinimo ir derinimo tendencijos, pristatoma sutarties sampratų įvairovė, analizuojamos įvairios sutarties gyvavimo stadijos – ikisutartiniai santykiai, preliminarioji sutartis, aktualiausi sutarties sudarymo, aiškinimo, negaliojimo, vykdymo ir nutraukimo klausimai. Atskiros knygos dalys skiriamos atstovavimo ir atsakomybės už sutarties neįvykdymą klausimams nagrinėti. Knyga skiriama aukštųjų mokyklų studentams, teisininkams praktikams (teisėjams, advokatams, notarams), tarptautinio verslo dalyviamsMykolo Romerio universitetasMykolo Romerio universitetas, [email protected] Romerio universitetas, [email protected]ės teisės katedraVytauto Didžiojo universiteta