Theoretical, methodological and practical distinctions of the categories ratio of subsidiary obligation and subsidiary liability

Abstract

This academic paper deals with the problem of the relationship between subsidiary obligationy and subsidiary liability, which today remains unresolved in the current civil law. While giving a general characteristic of subsidiary liability, avoids that of subsidiary obligation and all, indispensable cases of the imposition of a pecuniary obligation in case of a breach of the principal debtor's obligation on the subsidiary debtor is referred to as “subsidiary liability”, nor a civilistic doctrine where the views of scholars are in many ways in the opposite direction. It is noted that since the realization of civil liability is carried out in a protective civil relationship of a relative nature, which is a personal obligation, the juxtaposition of the obligation and responsibility should not be carried out, nevertheless, it does not give rise to a subsidiary obligation to a civil liability relationship. After analyzing the content of the concept of subsidiary liability, which is imposed by the legislator and domestic civilians, through the prism of designated c specific features of civil liability, it becomes obvious, unreasonable extension of the category limits of civil liability in terms use of the term “liability” to a subsidiary debtor. The need to adjust the terminology used by the legislator to amend the concept of civil liability and the meaning contained in the law is emphasized. It is summarized that subsidiary liability can only be regarded as one of the varieties of subsidiary obligations, which is far from exhaustive; It is based on a legal structure that includes the offenses of the subsidiary debtor, the damage caused, the causal link between them and the fault as a condition of civil liability and possesses the essential characteristics of civil liability. Emphasis is placed on calculating of such a distinction in current law.