ARCHIVE FOR 2016 RUSSIAN
mag->month > 0 ) { ?>
mag->getMonthString();?> mag->year;?>
mag->pdf_file): ?>
sess && $this->sess->isArticlePayed()):?>
Март 2016
CONTENT
FREE TRIBUNE
Artem Karapetov An Option to Sign the Agreement and Option Agreement According to the New Edition of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation The article analyses new rules of the Russian Civil Code for option and option contract, reasons for
adopting these rules and possible ways of their practical realisation. Article 429.2 of the Russian
Civil Code regulates an option to conclude a contract. An option is an agreement by which one party
gives the other party an irrevocable offer to make some major contract in the future in exchange for
a consideration or without it. Article 429.3 of the Russian Civil Code regulates an option contract, i.e.
a major contract that stipulates that the performance of obligations are to be called by one of the
parties. These two provisions establish a legal infrastructure for concluding widely practiced option
transactions under Russian law.
Keywords:
option, option contract
Buy a PDF
Konstantin Sklovskiy Payment under a Guarantee and Unjustified Enrichment of the Beneficiary Payment under transaction could lead to the unjustified enrichment of the payee irrespective of
whether the transaction is void. The basis for the transfer of property is established by the transaction
but differs from it. Therefore, it is argued that the obligation under the transaction as the basis for
performance and the basis for the transfer of property should not be regarded as the same thing.
The author uses these arguments to demonstrate that the beneficiary under a guarantee could
be unjustifiably enriched at the expense of the guarantee’s principal even if the guarantee itself is
valid. Although academics pay almost no attention to this issue, courts readily acknowledge that the
beneficiary under the a guarantee could be enriched by the payment that she received.
Keywords:
unjustified enrichment, restitution, independent guarantee
Buy a PDF
Andrey Pavlov Two Questions about Limitation of Actions: What Did the Supreme Court Say and What It Did not Say This article discusses two new rules on the limitation of actions in the Russian Civil Code. First rule
is that the limitation period could not be longer than 10 years from the moment when the cause
of action arises. Second rule is that expired limitation period should start running afresh in case
of written acknowledgement of the claim in question. The author analyses these provisions in light
of their interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the recent Ruling No. 43 of
29 September 2015.
Keywords:
limitation of actions, interruption of the limitation period, suspension of the limitation period, acknowledgement
Buy a PDF
Sergey Budylin Tort or Breach of Contract? Representations and Warranties in Russia and Abroad The article is devoted to statements of facts related to contracts. In English and American law such
statements are called representations and warranties. There is a fine difference between them: the
former are non-contractual statements, whereas the latter are part of the parties’ contract. In the
first part of the article the author reviews the approaches to the problem adopted in England and the
U.S. It appears that, notwithstanding all the differences between the legal systems, the structure of
legal consequences that appear in case of false statements is similiar. The falsity of a representation
(a non-contractual statement) may result in the contract rescission and awarding damages (normally,
in case of party’s fault) assessed under tort law rules. A breach of a warranty may result in the
contract termination (if the breach is sufficiently serious) and awarding damages (regardless of fault),
assessed under contract law rules.
Keywords:
warranties, representations, culpa in contrahendo, England, US
Buy a PDF
Kirill Novikov Exceptio Is not Subject to the Statue of Limitation: Roman Rule and the New Position of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia The article analyses one of the positions formulated in the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court
(SC) of the Russian Federation No. 25 «On Application of Certain Provisions of Section I of the First
Part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by the Courts», 23 June 2015. According to the
SC, limitation of actions does not apply to an objection by the defendant who refers to the invalidity
of a transaction from which the plaintiff derives his claim. The article explores the origin of the rule
in Roman law maxim «exceptio is not subject to the statute of limitation» and the possibility of its
application in modern conditions. It is argued that the SC’s interpretation is not related to the Roman
notion of exceptio. However, it should be supported with reference to modern Russian law.
Keywords:
Roman law, exceptio, statute of limitation, void transaction
Buy a PDF
