THE SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF CIVIL-LEGAL LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17605/Abstract
The article discusses the forms of civil-legal liability, particularly focusing on penalties as a method to ensure the performance of obligations and a means to encourage proper execution during the stages of contract formation and fulfillment. At the stage of a breach of obligation, penalties act as a measure of liability or a means to stop and eliminate the breach, or to compensate for the damage caused.
Additionally, the historical foundations of the forms of civil-legal liability are analyzed, highlighting that penalties have a cumulative, punitive nature towards the debtor. The article also addresses the functions of penalties, including their incentivizing, compensatory, punitive, educational, signaling, and warning functions.
References
1. L. Pop, Teoria generală a obligaţiilor, Ed. Lumina Lex, Bucureşti, 2000, p. 160; L. Pop, I.-F. Popa, S.I. Vidu, Tratat elementar de drept civil. Obligaţiile, Ed. Universul Juridic, Bucureşti, 2012, pp. 380-383.
2. S. Neculaescu, Reflecţii privind fundamentul răspunderii civile delictuale, în revista Dreptul nr. 11/2006, p. 41
3. This principle aims to eliminate all negative consequences arising from illegal actions. Its goal is to restore balance by returning the victim to the state before the harm occurred. This view stems from the very essence of the concept of civil-legal liability: restoring balance disrupted by harm and returning the victim to their previous condition. The reparative function manifests as a direct effect of the principle of restitutio in integrum: that is, the obligation to pay compensation for the damage caused.
4. This principle is defined in Part 1 of Article 330 of the Civil Code as follows: "Unless otherwise provided by law or contract, in case the obligation is not properly fulfilled, the payment of a penalty and compensation for damages does not exempt the debtor from fulfilling the obligation in its original form."
5. Adam I. Drept civil. Teoria generală a obligaţiilor, ediţia a 2-a, Ed. C. H. Beck, 2014, p. 302.
6. Costache M. The role and the current valences of civil liability principles and functions, în Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica, volume 2, issue 2/2013, pp. 497-517.
7. Eliescu M. Răspunderea civilă delictuală, Ed. Academiei R.S.R., Bucureşti, 1972, p. 29.
8. Pop L. op.cit. 1998, p. 164.
9. Stătescu C., Bîrsan C. Drept civil. Teoria generală a obligaţiilor, ediţia a IX-a revizuită şi adăugită, Ed. Hamangiu, Bucureşti, 2008, p. 145.
10. Vasilescu P. op. cit., p. 565.
11. Costache M.P. Analiza funcţiilor răspunderii civile. Constante şi noi valenţe // https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353130603_ANALIZA_FUNCTIILOR_RASPUNDERII_CIVILE_CONSTANTE_SI_NOI_VALENTE 12. Aristides N. Hatzis. Having the Cake and Eating it Too: Efficient Penalty Clauses in Common and Civil Contract Law // International Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2002. - 26 р. / Posted: 14 Sep 2002.; Martin Janku. Contractual Penalty and the Right to Payment for Delays Caused by Force Majeure in Czech Civil Law under the New Civil Code. December 2015. Danube 6(4). DOI: 10.1515/danb-2015-0016. 13. Kamil Abdu Oumer. Penalty Clauses: A Comparative Analysis between the Turkish and Ethiopian Laws // January 2017. Beijing Law Review 08(04):423-439/ DOI: 10.4236/blr.2017.84023; Prince Saprai. The Penalties Rule and the Promise Theory of Contract // Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. Volume 26, Issue 2. July 2013 , pp. 443-469 / DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900006147 14. Simas Vitkus. Penalty clauses within different legal systems // ‘‘Social Transformations in Contemporary Society’’, 2013 (1) ISSN 2345-0126 (online)/ http://stics.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/153-162.pdf 15.Larry A. Dimatteo. Behavioural Case for Contractual Penalties under the Common Law // European Review of Private Law. Volume 23, Issue 3 (2015) pp. 327–353. 16. Lucinda Miller. Penalty Clauses in England and France: A Comparative Study The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 79-106 (28 pages). Published By: www.jstor.org/stable/3663137.
