Determination of Fraud Characteristics and Mistakes as Grounds for Nullity of Treaty
Abstract
Problem setting. Majority of disputes heard by courts are cases on holding treaties invalid due to fraud or mistake, typically it I connected with alienation of real estate. An analysis of such cases assists protection of fraud person’s interests. That is why a definition of fraud, mistake and their characteristics from theoretic point of view and considering court practice is an actual problem. Analysis of resent researches and publications. Problems of treaties’ invalidity were studied by such scientists as: M. M. Agarkov, М. І. Braginsky, М. А. Blinova, P. Gavrylov, D. M. Genkin, О. V. Dzera, V. І. Zhekova, А. Zagurovsky, О. S. Іоffe, Ye. Kolomiets, N. Kozyar, D. І. Mayer, О. Otradnova, І. S. Peretersky, N. V. Rabinovych, K. L. Razumova, І. V. Spasibo-Fateeva, Ye. О. Kharytonov, N. S. Khatnyuk, V. P. Schakhmatova, etc. Target of research. Purpose of this study is a general research of fraud and mistake legal nature as a ground to hold a treaty invalid, to distinguish main and significant characteristics, forms and methods of their use and provide examples from court practice and develop legal consequences in dispute consideration on holding treaties invalid. Article’s main body. An article determines definition of fraud during conclusion of treaty. Proves difference between sham and false treaty. Considers the matter regarding defect of the will in treaties concluded under fraud and also in treaties under mistake. Analyzes the actual divided opinion of researches on who can apply to court to hold the treaty invalid. The author describes essence of mistake. Underlines that the mistake due to own negligence, ignorance of law or improper interpretation of one of the parties is not a ground to hold the treaty invalid. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Nowadays a treaty can be considered concluded under fraud in case of intentional and purposeful fraud by one party of treaty another party regarding fact that effect conclusion of treaty and is of the essence. And also if the fraud is a result of third parties actions that are not parties of the treaty and is obligatory for holding the treaty invalid. Another essential thing is the fact that aperson who has made a mistake due to own negligence and concluded the deed of gift, but thought it would be the permanent alimony agreement, than request to fulfill obligations on permanent alimony could not be considered.
References
Rozghon O. V. Vyznannia nediisnymy dohovoriv shchodo nerukhomoho maina, vchynenykh osoboiu pomylkovo abo pid vplyvom obmanu (udavani pravochyny) (Invalidation of Contracts on Immovable Property by a Person Under the Influence of Error or Fraud (Fictitious Transactions)), Naukovo-praktychnyi zhurnal «Mala entsyklopediia notariusa», No. 3, 2012, pp. 90–98. 2. Dyba I. Nediisnist dohovoriv, ukladenykh pid vplyvom obmanu (The Invalidity of Contracts Concluded Under the Influence of Fraud), Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy No. 32 (13–19 serpnia 2005), pp.33–38. 3. Dluhosh O. I. Nediisnist pravochyniv z defektamy voli (Void Contract with Defects Will), avtoref. dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk, 12.00.03, Dluhosh Oksana Ivanivna, Nats. akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy, NDI pryvat. prava i pidpryiemnytstva, K., 2013, p. 19 [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://mydisser.com/ru/catalog/view/6/44/13796.html. 4. Braginskiy M. I. Obschee uchenie o hozyaystvennyih dogovorah (General Theory of Economic Contracts), M. I. Braginskiy, Minsk, Nauka i tehnika, 1967, p. 260, [Elektronnyі resurs] – rezhim dostupu: http:/ /forum.yurclub.ru/ index.php?app=downloads&showfile=2200. 5. Kommentariy k Grazhdanskomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii, chasti pervoy (Commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, of the First Part), pod red. T. E. Abovoy, A. Yu. Kabalkina, M., Yurayt-Izdat, 2003, p. 880. 6. Ioffe O. S. Izbrannyie trudyi (Selected Works). V 4 t. T. 2, O. S. Ioffe, S. Pb., 2004, p. 296. 7. Gutnikov O. V. Nedeystvitelnyie sdelki v grazhdanskom prave. Teoriya i praktika osparivaniya (Invalid Transaction in Civil Law. Theory and Practice of Contesting), O. V. Gutnikov, M., Berator-Press, 2003, p. 576. 8. Novitskiy I. B. Nedeystvitelnyie sdelki, Voprosyi sovetskogo grazhdanskogo prava. Sb.1 (Invalid Transaction. Questions of Soviet Civil Law), pod red. M. M. Agarkova, M., L., 1945, pp. 31–73. 9. Gambarov Yu. S. Grazhdanskoe pravo. Obschaya chast (Civil Law. The General Part), Yu. S. Gambarov ; pod red. i s predisl. V. A. Tomsinova, M., Zertsalo, 2003, p. 816. 10. Rabinovich N. V. Nedeystvitelnost sdelok i ee posledstviya (Invalidity of Transactions and Its Consequences), N. V. Rabinovich, Leningrad, Izd-vo Leningr, un-ta, 1960, p. 171. 11. Vaskovskiy E. V. Uchebnik grazhdanskogo prava (Textbook of Civil Law), E. V. Vaskovskiy, pod red. B. C. Em, M., Statut, 2003, p. 142. 12. Romovska Z. Ukrainske tsyvilne pravo. Spadkove pravo: Akademichnyi kurs (Ukrainian Civil Law. Inheritance Law: Academic Course) Pidruchnyk, Z. Romovska, K., Atika, 2005, p. 560. 13. Dzera O. Nediisnist pravochynu za novym Tsyvilnym kodeksom Ukrainy (Void Contract for the New Civil Code of Ukraine), O. Dzera, O. Otradnova, Yurydychna Ukraina, 2003, No. 10, pp. 5–18. 14. Davydova I. V. Poniattia ta oznaky obmanu yak pidstavy nediisnosti pravochynu (The Concept and Features of Deception as a Ground of Invalidity of the Transaction), I. V. Davydova, Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava, 2011, Vyp. 59, pp. 218–225. 15. Romaniuk Ya. M. Komentar postanovy Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 6 lystopada 2009 No. 9 «Pro sudovu praktyku rozghliadu tsyvilnykh sprav pro vyznannia pravochyniv nediisnymy», Praktyka rozghliadu Verkhovnym Sudom Ukrainy tsyvilnykh sprav pro vyznannia pravochyniv nediisnymy (Comment Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on November 6, 2009 р. No 9 «The Judicial Practice of Civil Proceedings for Recognition of Transactions be Invalid» Practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine Civil Cases on Recognition Invalid Transactions), Ya. M. Romaniuk, Kyiv, Istyna, 2012, p. 222. 16. Dluhosh O. I. Vyznannia nediisnym pravochynu, vchynenoho pid vplyvom obmanu (Invalidation Transaction Committed Under the Influence of Fraud), O. I. Dluhosh, Forum prava, 2011, No. 3, pp. 217–221 [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://nbuv.gov.ua/j— pdf/FP_index.htm_2011_3_40.pdf. 17. Pro vyznannia dohovoru poruky nediisnym. Rishennia. Kyivskyi raionnyi sud m. Kharkova. Sprava No. 640/6433/14. 28 lypnia 2014 (On Recognition of the Contract Quarantee Void. Decision. Kyiv District Court. Kharkov. The Case Number 640/6433/14-c. July 28, 2014) [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/40540559. 18. Pro vyznannia dohovoru kupivli-prodazhu nediisnym. Rishennia. Kolehiia suddiv sudovoi palaty u tsyvilnykh spravakh apeliatsiinoho sudu Kirovohradskoi oblasti. Sprava No. 389/3228/13-ts,2-/389/856/13. 15.08.2014 (On Recognition of the Sales Contract Invalid. Decision. The Panel of Judges of the Civil Affairs Appeal Court of Kirovograd Region. The Case Number 389/3228/13-c, 2/389/856/13. 15/08/2014) [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/40206948. 19. Pro vyznannia dohovoru ipoteky nediisnym, vidshkoduvannia materialnykh zbytkiv ta moralnoi shkody. Rishennia. Krasnohvardiiskyi raionnyi sud m. Dnipropetrovska. Sprava No. 204/9104/13, 24 lystopada 2014 (On Recognition of the Mortgage Contract Null and Void, Compensation for Material and Moral Damages. Decision. Krasnogvardejskiy District Court. Dnepropetrovsk. The Case Number 204/9104 / 13th-c. November 24, 2014) [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/41675377. 20. Artemov V. V. Nedeystvitelnost sdelok i ih posledstviya: nekotoryie aspektyi (Invalidity of Transactions and Their Consequences: Some Aspects), Yurist, M., Yurist, 2002, No. 6. pp. 10–14. 21. Pro vyznannia nediisnymy dohovoriv daruvannia nerukhomoho maina. Rishennia. Polonskyi raionnyi sud Khmelnytskoi oblasti. Sprava No. 681/1789/14, 14 lystopada 2014 (About Invalidation of Contracts Donation of Real Property. Decision. Polonsky District Court Khmelnitsky Region. The Case Number 681/1789/14-c. November 14, 2014) [Elektronnyi resurs], rezhym dostupu: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/41441734.
