Separate issues of rights and obligations of loan agreement parties
Keywords:loan, loaner, borrower, user, gratuitousness
Problem setting. The content of any civil law agreement created by the terms and conditions determined by the parties and agreed between them, as well as the terms that are mandatory according to the regulations of the civil law. Qualifying the agreement from the legal view, the content of the agreement is always characterized as the summary of mutual rights and obligations of counterparties. That is why the problem of correlation of mutual rights and obligations between parties of civil relations interested and still excites scientists’ great interest.
Recent research and publications analysis. Such civil law scientists as M.I. Bragynskiy, S.V. Zankovskaya, O.S. Ioffe, S.N. Landkof, D.I. Meyer, G.N. Polyanskaya, V. A. Ryasencev, G.F. Shershenevych studied the balance of rights and duties of parties in the gratuitous use of property agreement (loan agreements). Issues of loan agreement legal regulation are studied by such modern scientist as N.M. Boiko, V.О. Goncharenko, N.A. Dyachkova, E.M. Klyueva, V.M. Kossak, O.M. Solovyov.
Paper objective. To analyze the scope and content of rights and duties of loaner and borrower; to disclose any peculiar features of powers of loan agreement parties tacking in account gratuitous nature of such relations; to substantiate the necessity to introduce any amendments to legislation in relation to rights and duties of the studied agreement parties.Paper main body. Peculiarities of rights and duties of loan agreement parties mainly connected to gratuitous nature of such relations. The scope and content of rights and duties of the counterparts according to the agreement depends upon its legal structure (real or consensus). At characterization of the loan agreement parties’ duties we should address as to the regulations of Chapter 60 of Ukrainian Civil Law and to the regulations governing hire (rent) relations. The Clauses of Chapter 58 of Ukrainian Civil Law shall be applied only if the opposite not determined by Chapter “Loan” and does not contradict gratuitous nature of loan relations. The main responsibility of the loaner according to the agreement is the transfer of piece of property to a user for gratuitous usage. At real transaction the loaner performs this function at the moment of agreement conclusion. At consensus model of transaction the duty of the loaner to transfer piece of property arise first of all.Conclusions. In order to improve legal regulation of certain duties of loan agreement parties we should: 1) in legal regulations to determine such terms as “ordinary costs”, “capital repairs” and “minor repairs”; 2) we should clearly indicate which regulations of Clause 58 “Hire(rent)” can be applied to govern the loan agreement. Such improvement will allow to eliminate any disputes at allocation of rights and duties of the parties during insurance of loaned property, at repair of property and reimbursement of repair expenses.
Cyvil'nyj kodeks Ukrai'ny vid 16.01.2003 r. № 435-IV. Verhovna Rada Ukrai'ny. Available at: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15/print1334313534405674
Cyvil'nyj kodeks Ukrai'ns'koi' RSR vid 18.07.1963 r. № 1540-VI. Verhovna Rada Ukrai'ny. Available at: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1540-06/print1334313534405674
Braginskij, M. I., Vitrjanskij, V. V. (2000). Dogovornoe pravo: im 2 books. Book 2: Dogovory o peredache imushhestva. Moscow: Statut, 800.
Ivanov, A. A.; Sergeev, A. P., Tolstoi, Ju. K. (Eds.) (1998). Bezvozmezdnoe pol'zovanie imushhestvom. Grazhdanskoe pravo: uchebnik: in 2 parts. Part II. Moscow: PROSPEKT, 2, 292–303.
Shpenov, D. Ju., Fazykosh, V. G., Buleca, S. B., Zaborovs'kyj, V. V. et. al.; Fazykosh, V. G., Bulecy, S. B. (Eds.) (2013). Dogovir pozychky. Cyvil'ne pravo Ukrai'ny : Osoblyva chastyna: pidruchnik. Kyiv: Znannja, 165–181.
Simolin, A. A. (1916). Vlijanie momenta bezvozmezdnosti v grazhdanskom prave. Kazan': Tip. Imperator. un-ta, 365.
Kossak, V. M. (2004). Glava 60. Pozychka. Cyvil'nyj kodeks Ukrai'ny : Naukovo-praktychnyj komentar. Kyiv: Istyna, 525–528.
Solovjov, O. M., Borysova, V. I., Baranova, L. M., Bjegova. T. I. et. al.; Borysova, V. I., Spasybo-Fatjejeva, I. V., Jaroc'kiy, V. L. (Eds.) (2011). Dogovir pozychky. Cyvil'ne pravo: pidruchnik: in 2 volumes. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2, 344–355.
Baru, M. I. (1959). Ponjatie i soderzhanie vozmezdnosti i bezvozmezdnosti v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave. Uchenye zapiski. Kharkovskii juridicheskii institut, 13, 19–64.
Venediktova, I. (2005). Osoblyvosti zastosuvannja dogovoru pozychky za suchasnym ukrai'ns'kym zakonodavstvom. Mala encyklopediya notariusa, 5, 37–45.
Goncharenko, V. O. (2005). Dogovir pozychky za ryms'kym pryvatnym pravom ta jogo recepcija u suchasnomu cyvil'nomu zakonodavstvi Ukrai'ny. Odeska natcionalna jurydichna akademiya, 21.
Rjasencev, V. A. (1938). Dogovor bezvozmezdnogo pol'zovanija. Sovetskaja justicija, 19, 9–12.
Ioffe, O. S. (1975). Objazatel'stvennoe pravo. Moscow: Juridicheskaya literatura, 880.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2015 О. В. Ночовкіна
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.