Cywilne prawo - zobowiązania - poręczenie na czas oznaczony - wytoczenie powództwa o zaspokojenie zabezpieczonego roszczenia - umowny termin zawity. Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 22 czerwca 2016 r., III CZP 19/16

Andrzej Szlęzak


The author argues that there is no correlation between the expiry of a term of a surety contract and the existence of claims which might have arisen under the contract prior to such date, as well as the admissibility of subsequent pursuing of such claims before a court of law. The surety contract’s remaining in force is a necessary condition for the claims to arise thereunder, but not to seek their protection through litigation. Such claims may be effectively pursued before a court of law until the lapse of the statute of limitations; thus, a lawsuit may be fi led also after the surety contract expired. Therefore, contrary to what the Supreme Court has held, to enjoy such claims it is not necessary to start litigation against the surety before the lapse of the term of the surety contract.
Author Andrzej Szlęzak (Wydział Prawa)
Andrzej Szlęzak,,
- Wydział Prawa
Journal seriesOrzecznictwo Sądów Polskich, ISSN 0867-1850, (B 11 pkt)
Issue year2017
Publication size in sheets0.55
Keywords in Polishcywilne prawo; zobowiązania; poręczenie na czas oznaczony; wytoczenie powództwa o zaspokojenie zabezpieczonego roszczenia; przedawnienie; umowny termin zawity
Keywords in Englishcivil law; obligations; fi xed-term surety; starting a lawsuit for performance of a secured claim; statute of limitations; contractual prescription term
Languagepl polski
Szlezak Cywilne.pdf 211.81 KB
Score (nominal)11
Score sourcejournalList
Citation count*
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Are you sure?