“The author comments on the decisions of the Supreme Court related to surety and guarantee contracts, applied in „hospital receivables” transactions. The author believes that the Supreme Court was incorrect in considering a surety contract as an institution which is aimed at a change of creditor (in the meaning of Art. 53 Sec. 6 of the Law on Health Facilities and Art. 54 Sec. 5 of the Law on Health Care Activity); rather, the Supreme Court should have considered such a contract as made in fraudem legis. On the other hand, the author believes that the Supreme Court is right in their reading of the legal structure of the guarantee contract stipulated in Art. 391 of the Civil Code; its performance does not subrogate the debtor under the guarantee contract into the rights of the satisfi ed creditor (a benefi ciary of the guaranty). By exercising a guarantee contract, the debtor performs its own debt, and not a debt of another.”
Powiązane
We are pleased to announce that the law firm SK&S and individual experts have once again been singled out by…
We are pleased to announce that the SK&S and individual experts have once again been singled out by the publisher…
Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak has successfully defended Bank Millennium against a PLN 185 Million claim by First Data Polska which…
We are proud to announce that in this year’s edition of The Legal 500 we have been recommended in 13…
Dr. (hab.) Andrzej Szlęzak disagrees with M. Łolik’s view that as it is forbidden by law to interferere in the statute of…
We have been recommended as one of the best law firms in 14 categories by The Legal500 EMEA 2024 ranking,…
In legal writings and case law it is universally accepted that the debtor’s acknowledging the fact that it is obligated…
Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak has been ranked in the Who’s Who Legal Awards 2021, published in the UK by Law…
It is our privilege to share that, yet another year in a row, SK&S and the firm’s lawyers have been…