TERMINOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY IN LAW: ON THE CONCEPTS OF "PUBLIC AGREEMENT" AND "PUBLIC CONTRACT"

The study of the legal concepts of the “public agreement” and the “public contract” is driven by their growing importance amidst the development of market relations and the intensifying interplay between private and public law. In financial law, the concept of a “public agreement” possesses specific characteristics that differ significantly from those defined in civil legislation. The article aims to clarify the terminology surrounding “public agreement” and “public contract”—terms often used interchangeably, leading to ambiguous interpretations of legal norms and errors in law enforcement. Distinguishing between these concepts (based on the parties involved, legal grounds, governing regulations, and objectives) is essential for the correct application of financial legislation. The article analyzes the commonalities and distinctions between the public agreement and the public contract, examining the rights and obligations of the parties as well as the scope of legal regulation. Particular attention is paid to the mandatory (*imperative*) and permissive (*dispositive*) methods of legal regulation applicable to these concepts. Furthermore, the article addresses the concept of the “public agreement” from both *de jure* and *de facto* perspectives, concluding that the term carries multiple meanings. Based on this research, the author draws conclusions regarding the similarities and differences between the public agreement and the public contract. Issues addressed: the article examines the specific characteristics and legal nature of the public agreement and the public contract, the relationship between them, and the interplay of private-law and public-law approaches in their legal regulation. The study also examines the role of the public interest, as well as the limits and nature of the objectives involved in regulating the categories under consideration. Methods: the research employs general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis and a systems approach, alongside specialized methods of inquiry: the formal-legal and comparative-legal methods. Conclusion. The author identifies certain similarities between the “public agreement” and the “public contract”: both institutions are characterized by elements of public intervention that restrict contractual freedom, as well as by a mandatory approach to legal regulation. However, they differ in terms of the parties involved, their objectives, and the nature of their legal regulation. It is established that, in the case of a public agreement, public-law influence restricts specific aspects of contractual freedom within the framework of predominantly civil-law relations; conversely, in a public contract, the contractual form is fundamentally subordinated to the achievement of a goal of public significance and operates within a complex, cross-sectoral regulatory environment.