TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

1

V prispevku avtorica obravnava razliko med pogodbo, ki je bila sklenjena pod vplivom nedopustne grožnje, in pogodbo, ki zaradi nedopustne grožnje sploh ni bila sklenjena. Pogodba je v skladu z določbo 15. člena Obligacijskega zakonika (OZ) sklenjena, ko se stranki sporazumeta o njenih bistvenih sestavinah. Sporazum o bistvenih sestavinah se veže na izjavo volje, ki implicira obstoj poslovne volje. Ta domneva je izpodbita v primerih ničnih pogodb, pri čemer je razlika med navidezno pogodbo (kot primerom nične pogodbe) in pogodbo, sklenjeno z izsiljeno izjavo, v (ne)obstoju poslovne podlage. Nedovoljena grožnja lahko prek utemeljenega strahu deluje le na izjavo in ne nujno na oblikovanje volje, zaradi česar ni podan položaj napake volje, temveč položaj, ko umanjka pravni temelj za nastanek poslovne obveznosti med strankama.

The article analyses the difference between a contract concluded under the threat of coercion and a contract not concluded despite such a threat resulted in a forced declaration of will. In accordance with Article 15 of the Slovenian Code of Obligations, a contract is concluded when parties agree upon its essential substantive parts. The agreement on the essentials of the contract is based on the declaration of intent which implies the existence of will to conclude the contract. This presumption is rebutted in cases of void contracts. The difference between virtual (as an example of void contract) and forced contract lays in the existence or the absence of the causa of the contract. Illegal threat via founded fear can influence only the declaration of will and not necessarily the formation of will in which case it is not correct to treat such legal situations as cases of a mistake of will but as cases where there is no basis for the rise of a legally binding ground that would create legally binding obligations among parties.

The Influence of the Coercive Threat on the Formation and Declaration of Will and Legal Consequences