Agreements That Are Contrary To Good Morals

Veröffentlicht am

2 The principle of cancelling a contract contrary to bonus pluss constitutes a restriction on the contractual freedom of the parties in order to protect and preserve the aforementioned fundamental values of the international community. The conflict with good character may be caused by the conclusion of the contract, by the performance of the contract by one of the parties or by both, or by the purpose for which the contract was entered into. Often, the violation of good character results from a combination of the content of the contract and the circumstances. The scope of the concept has many aspects, such as protecting the economic independence of the weaker party, prohibiting the malicious exploitation of a position of power, prohibiting entry to the treaty for indecent or mischievous reasons, or prohibiting the creation of illegal obligations inciting crime. The conclusion, performance and purpose of the contract must be legal contracts annulled under the conclusion: – contracts cancelled under legal prohibitions – Certain pacta estate – certain contracts with enemy subjects – agreements that supersede the jurisdiction of the courts (summary execution clauses and conclusive evidentiary clauses) A conclusive evidentiary clause: an accountant is conclusive proof of the debtor`s debt. If the author of such a clause is a creditor, the clause will be contrary to public policy: it makes the creditor the judge in his own case. If the author is a third party – valid clause. Another provision used in the resolution of a housing dispute is Act 28 al. 4 of the Constitution, which provides that families with many children and persons with disabilities are particularly in the care of the state and local authorities.

The municipal administration, which acted as owner, brought an action in early cancellation of the rental contract and the eviction of the tenant and persons who co-exist from the apartment due to a rent and joint operating debt of three months. If the action had been met, a family of five minor children and one adult child, a mother on parental leave and a disabled father would have remained homeless. The court dismissed the local government`s appeal and justified the judgment, arguing in particular that the basis for the early termination of the tenancy agreement was due to the lessor`s breaches. The economic situation of the accused was difficult and they needed social assistance. The local government as owner had not organized welfare according to the requirements. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered that the reasons for non-payment of rent and public utility were good reasons.