Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Právny obzor. Teoretický časopis pre otázky štátu a práva (Juridical Review. Theoretical journal for the questions of state and law)

2 Hlušák M.

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

EŠTE RAZ KU KUMULÁCII BEŽNÝCH ÚROKOV A ÚROKOV Z OMEŠKANIA (A O SANKCIÁCH V SÚKROMNOM PRÁVE)

100%

Hlušák M.

Právny obzor. Teoretický časopis pre otázky štátu a práva (Juridical Review. Theoretical journal for the questions of state and law)

2022

tom 105

nr 2

165 – 172

In the article the author responds to the study of prof. O. Ovečková on ordinary interest and default interest, and disputes her conclusion that during default the creditor is entitled to both, ordinary as well as default interest. In the author’s view, the creditor is entitled only to the higher of the two, since both claims are, to a certain extent, aimed at satisfying the same interest of the creditor. In the article, the author further discusses the nature of sanctions in private law, in particular the question whether private law sanctions really fulfil a preventive, punitive and compensatory function. He points out the difference between the function or substance of sanctions and their effect. He concludes that, at present, sanctions in private law essentially fulfil only a compensatory function. However, it does not exclude the possibility that they may also have a preventive or punitive effect in individual cases.

SÚBEH REIVINDIKAČNÉHO A ODŠKODŇOVACIEHO NÁROKU

100%

Hlušák M.

nr 3

177 – 188

In the paper the author deals with the possibility of concurrence of re-vindication and indemnification claims. Thus, whether, for example, in the case of theft of an object, the owner can claim damages against the thief, even if he could claim against the thief for the return of the object. The author concludes that this is possible. According to him, the damage may also consist in the mere retention of the thing, but only if it is a movable thing and the person retaining it is recklessly withholding it without a willingness to hand it over. The owner will therefore be able to make a claim for damages against him in such a case instead of a claim for replevin. In the author’s opinion, such an approach may help the owner of the movable thing by saving him from a two-round execution (if it is a substitutable thing), or two separate, successive main and execution proceedings (if it is a non-substitutable thing), since instead of having to wait for the result of the execution by taking the thing away, he can claim damages in the first main proceedings.