Rights and obligations system of loan obligation sides in modern law

Abstract

Introduction. The paper explores the mutual (bilaterally binding) character of the loan agreement. The conclusion that the loan agreement creates not only the rights of the lessor (traditional approach) but also the rights of the borrower is proved. The educational and scientific literature regarding the subjective rights and obligations of the loan agreement parties follows the opinion that the obligation under the loan contract is unilaterally binding as the lender, who is always a right-holder, creates binding obligations, and the borrower will always be the party bound by these obligations. At the same time it is necessary to differentiate between the monetary loan agreement and the loan in kind agreement in connection with differences in a set of the bilateral rights and liabilities of the lender and the borrower. Materials and methods. The method of the analysis of the existing Russian legislation and law-enforcement practice and the existing European standards for legal unification is at the heart of the research. The methods of legal modelling and forecasting made it possible to define the need for introduction of amendments to the existing Russian regulations, as well as the need for correcting court practice. The use of these methods permitted establishing the consequences of making changes and adjustments, as well as revealing how closely Russian law enforcement practice would follow the existing European standards. The legal sociological method permits the assessment of social problems from the standpoint of the legislator and the law enforcer. The method of interpretation complemented the comparative legal analysis, allowing us to understand and compare the Russian and European standards. The use of various methods allowed us to formulate the main theoretical conclusions and make our own proposals on the studied field of public relations. Results of the study. As a result of the conducted research it was revealed that, firstly, the borrower has a system of rights. Consequently, the loan agreement is bilaterally binding. Secondly, the rights of the parties under the loan agreement and the loan in kind agreement differ. In this regard, it is necessary to differentiate the civil legal mechanism for protecting the rights of the parties under the monetary loan agreement from under the loan in kind agreement. The scientific results obtained during the research made it possible to formulate a number of proposals to improve the current legislation. Discussion and conclusion. It is substantiated that the rights of the parties of the loan agreement can be classified into pre-contractual and contractual; into the rights associated with the creation, execution and termination of a loan agreement; into property and non-property rights. Information rights of the borrower are singled out separately, their classification is developed and justified.