In the present study we examine the correlation between atypical contracts and the Draft of Hungarian Private Law. If we examine the age of the Draft of Hungarian Private Law from the aspect of the existence of the atypical contracts, it can be realised that this classification of contracts existed at that time as well. There were provisions added to those statements inducing obligation occuring the most frequently and which were institutionalized (corresponded to the classification of contracts in Roman law) by the special division of the part of contract law of the Draft. Those obligations relying on a different legal basis than these established forms were classified as innominated/atypical contracts. The license agreement, syndication agreement and the agreement about the agent travelling from place to place were also considered to belong here. Above the regulations included in the general provisions of the contract law of the Draft, the essence of these contracts was formed by the consent of the parties.
At the time when the Draft was prepared, some of todays' atypical contracts did not appear in the Hungarian legal practice and would have not been inserted in the system of the Draft, therefore:
• the need to regulate the distance contract arised in consequence of the technical development
• according to the economic changes, the leasing and the franchise agreement appeared only after the second world war in Western-Europe, in Hungary it only appeared -became widespread - after the change of system
• the marketing construction applied in international context in case of consort agreements is the 'legal achievement' of the last two decades of the 20[th] century
As a matter of fact, some atypical contracts were concluded even at the time of the Draft, but these contracts remained out of the material scope of the Draft:
• the concession agreement, which was regulated by many rules depending on the nature of the concession in the 1920-30's
• independent commercial agency contract, since this kind of contract and its characteristics were evolved and crystallized out in the 1920-30's
• itinerant/doorstep sale - as an idependent legal institution - was not formed either by the jurisprudence or by the judicial practice of that time. In our point of view, the present institution of itinerant sale is parallel with the characteristics of the commercial traveller defined in section 45 of the Act on Commerce. Therefore, the inclusion of the itinerant sale in the Draft was not arisen, not even in consequence of the regulation of the roots of this contract in the Act on Commerce;
• the syndication agreement was one special type of the cooperation agreements at those times as well, therefore its insert in the codex would have been rather difficult.
As for the timesharing contract, according to those circumstances that can be found in the part of the property law of the Draft, it would have been feasible to insert this agreement in the structure of the Draft, if it had been existed (the appearance and the international spread of the system of the time-share can be dated to the last two decades of the 20[lh] century). These signs are the following: the section 666 of the Draft; apart from the usufruct, other personal servitudes can emerge, "by which the authorization is not given to enjoy the fruits of an asset, these servitudes only provide entitlement to use that asset in certain aspects. The object of these can be any opportunity of the use of the property."; "There are limited rights of property, which entitle to use the property like in case of servitudes, but these rights are not bound to a certain person or dominant tenement, they can be transferred freely and they devolve on the successor of the entitled as well... The property and its use are always separated by these rights."
The factoring agreement, similarly to the timesharing agreement - if such agreements would have been concluded at that time -could have been inserted in the structure of the Draft. Our point of view can be proved by the following legal statements that can make the planting of the factoring agreement possible:
• if the debtor acknowledged his debt towards the assignee acting in good faith, the performance could not be denied referring to the non-existence of the claim or its extinguishment before the assignment or based on the objections made by the debtor against the assignee;
• similarly to the case of factoring, in case of assignment it was acknowledged not to inform the debtor about the assignment (it was prohibited) ("secret assignment");
• the debtor could validly pay for the creditor until the notification of the assignment; the debtor could be notified only by the assignor or the assignee;
• in consequence of the assignment, the accessorial rights were transferred to the creditor (interests, lien etc.);
• in case of onerous assignment, the assignor had to guarantee the verity and the recoverability of the claim.
The aim of this study is to examine the existence or the roots of the atypical contracts under the economic and legal conditions that were determinant at the time of the Draft and to examine whether these contracts could have been planted in the regulations of the Draft. As a consequence, it can be declared that the Draft is a bit more adaptable than the Civil Code with its closed relative structure and schematic contractual system and with the only function of satisfying demands (see also: the abovementioned referring to the timesharing and the factoring agreement).
"Végül még csak az a kérdés marad fenn, hogy a törvénykönyv a magánjognak rendkívül tág anyagából milyen részt öleljen fel. A magánjogi kódexet mindenütt általában úgy tekintik, mint az állam egész jogrendszerének központi, centrális részét, mint az ún. általános magánjogi szabályok gyűjteményét, amely mellett a többi joganyagnak feladata egyes jogtételeknek és speciális jogintézményeknek különleges vonatkozásokban való részletes kiépítése s a jogérvényesítés és a jogvédelem módjának szabályozása. Ezentúl inkább csak célszerűségi és egyéb megfontolások döntők arra nézve, hogy ez a joganyag tágabb vagy szűkebb körben állapíttassék-e meg ahhoz képest, hogy egyfelől a jogintézményt oly általános jellegűnek s annyira állandósult szabályozásnak tekinthetjük-e, hogy a nagyobb általánosságra s állandóságra igényt tartó kódexbe felvétele indokolt, másfelől, hogy nem szólnak-e politikai vagy egyéb okok bizonyos joganyagnak a magánjogi kódexbe foglalása ellen."[2]
A fenti idézetnek megfelelően vizsgáljuk az atipikus szerződések kategóriájának és a Magánjogi Törvényjavaslatnak a viszonyát.
Ami a Magyar Magánjogi Törvényjavaslatot illeti, szakmai színvonalát az elmúlt 80 évben nem kérdőjelezték meg, a hatályos jogszabállyá nem vált törvénytervezet sok megoldása a bírói gyakorlatra alapvető hatással volt, így számos rendelkezése szokásjoggá vált, azonban az ún. kereskedelmi ügyletek szabályozását mellőzte.[3]
A Jogkódex-előfizetéséhez tartozó felhasználónévvel és jelszóval is be tud jelentkezni.
Az ORAC Kiadó előfizetéses folyóiratainak „valós idejű” (a nyomtatott lapszámok megjelenésével egyidejű) eléréséhez kérjen ajánlatot a Szakcikk Adatbázis Plusz-ra!
Visszaugrás
