Przegląd orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego w sprawach cywilnych

Abstrakt

In first part of the review author analyses four rulings of the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has answered for legal questions submitted by the courts of lower instance. In first ruling the Supreme Court explained a moment when the limitation period of consumer’s claim for returning of paid sum based on the provisions of unjustified enrichment sum runs. In next two rulings the Supreme Court dealt with a problem of amount of contractual penalty agreed in contract on construction works and for creditor’s delay. In last ruling the Supreme Court considered a problem whether the commission is a main subject matter of the loan contract and whether a standard term related to the amount of commission may be controlled based on the provisions on unfair terms in B2C contracts in the Civil Code.

In second part of the review the authors comment three decisions of the Supreme Court. First ruling of the seven judges of the Supreme Court concerns a very interesting problem relating to modification of time of performance. The Supreme Court stated that the parties to the contract may extend the date of consideration even though it is already due. Then the limitation period runs again upon the expiry of the deferred period. Such possibility does not infringe the prohibition of modification of statutory terms of limitation, expressed in art. 119 of Civil Code and is compatible with the principle of contractual liberty.

In second judgment the Supreme Court considers whether a director of the tax administration office may claim for introducing of the system of separate estates in matrimony when a person who should pay a custom duty has not any personal assets. The Supreme Court hold that art. 52 § 1a of the Family and Guardianship Code may not be applied for protection of such public law claim.

In third judgment the Supreme Court dealt with a problem of termination of credit contract by a bank if the bank did not comply its duties arising from art. 75c of Banking Law Act. According to this provision the bank has to inform the customer that he or she may (inter alia) require to modify the schedule of payment before the bank terminates the credit contract because of delay. The non-observing of such duty causes that the termination of credit contract is not effective.