3 februarie, 2015
Bazil Oglinda a participat luni, 2 februarie, la Dezbaterea organizata de Juridice.ro pentru a analiza implicatiile denuntarii unilaterale a contractului, prevazute de Noul Cod Civil. Partenerul ONV LAW a aratat ca denuntarea unilaterala, institutie ce este reglementata in premiera la nivelul dreptului comun contractual, este o expresie a libertatii contractuale, fiind doar in aparenta o exceptie de la principiul forței obligatorii a contractului.
February 3rd, 2015
Bazil Oglinda highlighted the main implications of unilateral contract termination according to the New Civil Code, at the debate organised by Juridice.ro on Monday, February 2nd. The ONV LAW Partner pointed out that unilateral termination – a concept that is being regulated for the first time under contractual common law – is an expression of contractual freedom, and thus it is only apparently an exception to the principle of contractual binding force. Exista totusi si cateva situatii – putine – in care dreptul de denuntare unilaterala decurge din lege, iar denuntarea devine astfel o exceptie reala. Este cazul, spre exemplu, al contractelor pe durata nedeterminata care, desi sunt incheiate ca sa produca efecte, admit faptul ca nici o parte nu se poate angaja la nesfarsit printr-un contract (conform art. 1277).
Denuntarea poate aduce mai multa flexibilitate in relatiile contractuale, acesta flexibilitate putand fi utilizata chiar ca strategie de marketing pe o piata competitiva, cum este cazul pietei imobiliare. Spre exemplu, un dezvoltator poate atrage un cumparator prin faptul ca ii ofera posibilitatea sa iasa din contract – prin denunțarea acestuia intr-un termen rezonabil. Pe de alta parte, este adevărat ca de cele mai multe ori cea care isi confera dreptul de denuntare este partea puternica dintr-un contract, asa cum este cazul in acest moment pe piata imobiliara, care a devenit o piata “a cumparatorilor”.
In afara de avantajul flexibilitatii trebuie remarcat si dezavantajul unei oarecare insecuritati contractuale. Spre exemplu, daca in alte situatii motivul incetarii contractului este clar si previzibil (de ex. ajungerea la termen, rezolutiunea pentru incălcarea obligatiilor, forta majora etc), denuntarea contractului opereaza fara a se invoca vreun motiv, fiind lasata la discretia partii in favoarea careia exista dreptul. Pornind de la acest aspect, alin. 4 al art. 1276 le ofera partilor posibilitatea sa deroge de la regimul de drept comun stabilit in alin. 1-3 ale aceluiasi articol. In acest context se naste, logic, intrebarea daca partile ar putea sa prevada in contract orice clauze derogatorii.
In astfel de situatii, rolul avocatului-redactor de contracte este esential in realizarea protectiei intereselor economice ale clientului sau. In acelasi timp, subliniaza partenerul ONV LAW, avocatul trebuie sa evite formularile excesive in cadrul contractelor, pentru a evita situatiile in care o clauza se poate intoarce impotriva clientului, in caz de litigiu.
Atunci cand se ajunge in instanta, perspectiva judecatorului este extrem de importanta. In astfel de situatii viziunea sa privind validitatea unei clauze derogatorii de la regimul de drept comun ar trebui sa se bazeze pe o serie de intrebari legitime: contravine aceasta clauza de denuntare ordinii publice si bunelor moravuri, conform art. 11 din Noul Cod Civil? Spre exemplu, ar fi posibila restituirea prestatiilor pe baza unei clauze care prevede acest lucru, in ciuda dispozitiilor din alin. 2 al art. 127? Aceasta intrebare este de interes in special in cazul contractelor de închiriere a unui imobil.
Partenerul ONV LAW subliniaza astfel necesitatea unei interpretari in care judecatorul ia in considerare toate aspectele relevante pentru validitatea si caracterul operant al clauzelor de denuntare unilaterala. Cu siguranta, aceasta interpretare trebuie sa se bazeze pe principiul bunei-credințe si al echilibrului contractual, care ghideaza judecatorul atunci cand este cazul sa intervina asupra fortei obligatorii a contractului. Puteti urmari debaterea aici.
Certainly, there are specific circumstances – limited in number – in which the right to unilateral termination stems from the law and thus, termination is a legal exception. This is the case, for instance, for permanent contracts which admit that neither party can commit indefinitely (according to art. 1277).
Unilateral termination can be used as a marketing strategy in competitive markets, such as real estate, because it gives more flexibility to buyers in contractual relations. For instance, developers may attract buyers by giving them the possibility to get out of a contract – by terminating the latter in a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand, it is a fact that usually it is the stronger party that grants itself the right to terminate the contract, as it is currently the case for buyers in the real estate market.
Besides the obvious advantage of flexibility, there are also disadvantages to termination, of which contractual insecurity is the most notable. For instance, while the reason for termination is clear and predictable in certain cases (e.g. contract expiry, termination due to breach in obligations, force majeure etc.), contract termination may occur in the absence of any clear reasoning, being left at the discretion of the party entitled to call for the termination. Along these lines, para. 4 of art. 1276 allows the parties to defer the rights established in para. 1-3 of the same article. In this context, a question arises: could the parties state any termination-related clauses in the contract?
This is why the lawyer editing contract plays a crucial role in securing the best arrangements for the client. At the same time, the ONV LAW Partner emphasizes that lawyers should avoid verbose clauses so that the latter don’t backfire, in case of a dispute.
When a case goes to court, the perspective of the judge is highly important. The judge’s vision of the validity of a clause waiving the common law directives should rely on a series of legitimate questions: does the clause contravene to public order and morality, according to art. 11 of the New Civil Code? For instance, would it be possible to claim reimbursement of the benefits, in spite of the dispositions of para. 2 of art. 1276? This question is of particular interest in lease contracts.
The ONV LAW Partner pleads for an interpretation in which the judges take into account all relevant aspects before ruling for or against the validity and effectiveness of a unilateral termination clause. Undoubtedly, this interpretation should have the principles of good faith and contractual balance at the core. You may watch the debate here.