| Title |
Iš anksto sutartų nuostolių instituto Jungtinės Karalystės teisėje ir netesybų instituto Lietuvos Respublikos teisėje palyginimas / |
| Another Title |
A comparison between the liquidated damages under the law of the United Kingdom and penalties under the law of the Republic of Lithuania. |
| Authors |
Bublienė, Danguolė ; Truskaitė-Paškevičienė, Jūratė |
| DOI |
10.15388/Teise.2013.0.1256 |
| Full Text |
|
| Is Part of |
Teisė.. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 2013, t. 87, p. 34-50.. ISSN 1392-1274. eISSN 2424-6050 |
| Abstract [eng] |
The civil law of the Republic of Lithuania foresees two possible forms of civil liability for a breach of a contract, penalty and damages. Penalty is a sum of money prescribed by the law, a contract or a court decision which the debtor must pay to the creditor in the case of non-performance or a defective performance (a fine or delay interest). Damages are the financial expression of the harm caused by the non-performing party. However, even in contracts governed by Lithuanian law the parties sometimes agree upon „liquidated damages“, a term that is familiar to common law systems, but that is not governed by the Lithuanian statutory law. Where a contract is governed by Lithuanian law, a question of legal qualification and legal effects of such contract provisions arises. Seeking to find a solution to this question, the authors of this article have made a comparison of the concept of liquidated damages in a common law country (taking English law as an example) and the concept of penalty and damages in Lithuanian law. Despite of the similar functions and similar wording of such contract terms, the concept of liquidated damages and the concept of penalty under Lithuanian law have several important differences. Furthermore, the article examines the court practice of the Lithuanian courts related to the notion of liquidated damages. Finally the article provides arguments and suggestions how the agreements on liquidated damages should be treated from Lithuanian law perspective. The main finding is that such agreements should be treated as agreements on penalty known by Lithuanian law. The courts have a right to examine such agreements and exercise control over them on the same basis as they do with respect to agreements on penalty. |
| Published |
Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla |
| Type |
Journal article |
| Language |
Lithuanian |
| Publication date |
2013 |
| CC license |
|
