Negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo problematika : sutartinė civilinė atsakomybė

Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo problematika: sutartinė civilinė atsakomybė
In the Journal:
Teisės mokslo pavasaris. 2015, 2015, p. 189-200
Keywords:
LT
Negautas pelnas; Negautos pajamos; Privatinės teisės sistema; Įrodinėjimo našta; Žala.
EN
Burden of proof; Damage; Loss of income; Loss of profit; Private legal system.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje aptariama nuostolių, pasireiškiančių negautų pajamų (negauto pelno) forma, įrodinėjimo teisiniuose ginčuose problematika. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas lyginamajam metodui – nuostolių numatymo ir apskaičiavimo, taip pat įrodinėjimo naštos paskirstymo ypatumų rėmuose analizuojamos Kontinentinės ir Bendrosios teisės tradicijų doktrinos. Nagrinėjama tiek kritikuotina, tiek gerąją praktiką perteikianti nacionalinių bei užsienio teismų praktika. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe article includes the analysis of the differences between the loss of income and loss of profit in the Lithuanian private legal system. While the legislature uses the term of income, according to the Highest Court of Lithuania what really should matter for the breaching and nonbreaching parties is the profit. Net profit to be exact, as the situation when the non-breaching party is rewarded more by the court than it actually lost should not occur. However, it is suggested not to focus on the definitions but to grasp the nature of the concept beyond it. The problem of burden of proof in cases where lawsuit has been brought for loss of income is exceptionally sensitive. On the one hand, plaintiff must reasonably justify the claim, on the other, sometimes it can be nearly impossible to find relevant evidence, although sometimes it can be done by claiming the profit of the breaching party as ones loss.Thus the court should weigh the facts very carefully and not require from the claimant what is not available while proving the point. Although countries and law traditions conceptualize it differently, the foreseeability of the loss in the contractual relations has been and will persist to be as a point of reference to rely on – as a proof for a non-breaching party and a point of contestation of the claim for the breaching party. No matter how different the jurisdictions are, it is clear that there is no easy way of recovering the loss of profits. Therefore, the best practice of common and continental law traditions is to be generalized and used to harmonize contractual relations and prevent the breach of contract law. [From the publication]

ISSN:
2345-0878
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/57991
Updated:
2021-01-10 12:52:57
Metrics:
Views: 38
Export: