Abstract
The term conditioned freedom of contracts appeared in our legal theory before the adoption of the Obligations Relations Act, whereas the term directed freedom of contracts occurred after the Act's entry into force. Both terms were used to signify transformation of freedom of con tracts within the legal system based on ideology of socialism, social ownership of the means of production and government ruled economy and, afterwards, 'coordinated economy'. Conditioned freedom of contracts originated from the right to use the means of production in social ownership. This right, which belonged to social (state-owned) companies, consisted of two components. The first, public-law component conditioned the second, private law component, by means of norms in individual administrative acts and administrative regulations. As these norms were an expression of state power, they make the contract subordinate: individual administrative act is a condition for the conclusion of contract, and administrative regulations for its validity. Directed freedom of contracts is freedom of making contracts directed by economic order established by the Constitution, systemic laws, and partially by the norms of the basic principles of the Obligations Relations Act which are related to social companies. As regards freedom of contracts it can be said that even today it is directed by legal principles and norms of economic-legal public policy through which the state interferes in business enterprises.
Highlights
The term conditioned freedom of contracts appeared in our legal theory before the adoption of the Obligations Relations Act, whereas the term directed freedom of contracts occurred after the Act’s entry into force
Both terms were used to signify transformation of freedom of contracts within the legal system based on ideology of socialism, social ownership of the means of production and government ruled economy and, afterwards, “coordinated economy”
Conditioned freedom of contracts originated from the right to use the means of production in social ownership
Summary
Између слободе уговарања и размене роба и услуга постоји уска веза. Размена, односно скуп односа размене који се остварују на тржишту, подразумева да се тржишни субјекти, у економском смислу продавци, као носиоци понуде и купци, као носиоци тражње, повезују. Повезивање носилаца понуде и носилаца тражње одвија се у правној форми уговора.[8] Из перспективе економиста уговор је правни облик размене.[9] Тржиште подразумева слободно одлучивање економски схваћеног продавца и купца о томе шта ће да продају или да купе. Слобода уговарања представља изузетак, а принудни прописи принцип у регулисању односа у размени. Уговор је био један од основа на којима је почивало српско грађанско право.[11] Уговор је био заснован на принципу слободе уговарања који је правним субјектима остављао слободу да сами одлуче да ли ће закључити уговор и да слободно уреде његову садржину.[12] Правна лица као субјекти права располагала су уговором стварима из своје имовине, а правни субјективитет им је могао бити признат једино под условом да су имала имовину.[13]. Принцип који у организацији привреде у социјалистичкој држави замењује тржиште.[21]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
