Wymagalność roszczenia o zapłatę kary umownej jako przesłanka dopuszczalności potrącenia. Uwagi z perspektywy historyka prawa

In this paper, I address the problem of the enforceability of a claim for payment of a contractual penalty in the context of the admissibility of the set-off of such a claim. This problem manifests itself primarily in a situation where the contractual provision regarding the penalty does not contain a deadline for its payment. The prevailing view in contemporary Polish case law is that in such a situation the obligation to pay the contractual penalty is indefinite, and therefore the claim for payment becomes due after the debtor is called upon to perform this obligation, which means that the creditor should first demand the payment of the contractual penalty. I tackle the issue from a historical perspective, starting from Roman law, through the ius commune and views expressed in legal science on the basis of the Code of Obligations of 1933, up to the modern academic and jurisprudential concepts. These concepts, to the extent that they emphasize the need for prior a demand for payment of a contractual penalty, establish a new requirement that braks with the old tradition of understanding of the enforceability of a claim for payment of a contractual penalty.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
PRAWO i WIĘŹ
Published
2024-09-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/priw.vi51.784
Primary Topic
Polish Law and Legal System
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Wymagalność roszczenia o zapłatę kary umownej jako przesłanka dopuszczalności potrącenia. Uwagi z perspektywy historyka prawa

Marek Sobczyk
PRAWO i WIĘŹ
Polish Law and Legal System
article

Wymagalność roszczenia o zapłatę kary umownej jako przesłanka dopuszczalności potrącenia. Uwagi z perspektywy historyka prawa

Marek Sobczyk
article en

Abstract

In this paper, I address the problem of the enforceability of a claim for payment of a contractual penalty in the context of the admissibility of the set-off of such a claim. This problem manifests itself primarily in a situation where the contractual provision regarding the penalty does not contain a deadline for its payment. The prevailing view in contemporary Polish case law is that in such a situation the obligation to pay the contractual penalty is indefinite, and therefore the claim for payment becomes due after the debtor is called upon to perform this obligation, which means that the creditor should first demand the payment of the contractual penalty. I tackle the issue from a historical perspective, starting from Roman law, through the ius commune and views expressed in legal science on the basis of the Code of Obligations of 1933, up to the modern academic and jurisprudential concepts. These concepts, to the extent that they emphasize the need for prior a demand for payment of a contractual penalty, establish a new requirement that braks with the old tradition of understanding of the enforceability of a claim for payment of a contractual penalty.

PRAWO i WIĘŹ(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Polish Law and Legal System
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.