Prarastos galimybės piniginė vertė

LT2006 m. kovo 28 d. Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimas Lietuvos teismams užkrovė sunkią, tačiau seniai teisės vartotojų lauktą naštą. Precedento doktrina faktiškai buvo priimta teisės praktikų, nors kartais Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas vis dar nesuprantamai, vadovaudamasis formaliais motyvais, atsisakydavo taikyti savo paties pateiktus išaiškinimus sprendžiant analogiškas bylas. Šio straipsnio autorius neabejoja precedento doktrinos reikalingumu bet kurioje teisinėje sistemoje (nė viena teisės sistema nėra tobula) ir neketina bendrai aptarinėti Lietuvos teismų pasirengimo (ir jų galimybės, atsižvelgiant į nevienalytę teismų praktiką) vienodai spręsti analogiškas bylas. Šiuo straipsniu norima aptarti vieną iš paskutiniųjų Aukščiausiojo Teismo pasiūlytų naujovių Lietuvos teisėje, t. y. prarastos galimybės piniginę vertę kaip ikisutartinių santykių nuostolių formą. Kaip teigiama toliau, neatsakingai motyvuota nutartis nuosekliai taikant precedento doktriną gali sukelti išties kurioziškų padarinių. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Ikisutartiniai santykiai; Ikisutartinė atsakomybė; Nuostoliai; Nuostolių atlyginimas; Piniginė vertė; Prarasta galimybė; Precedento teisė; Case law; Damages; Losses; Monetary value; Of lost opportunity; Pre-contractual liability; Precontractual relations.

ENThe article deals with the doctrine of lost opportunity damages caused by an unfair party to precontractual negotiations in the Lithuanian law. Three decisions of the Lithuanian Supreme Court are noted as revealing the Court's willingness to follow the precontractual liability rules established in UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and Principles of European Contract Law emphasizing the possibility to award negative interest (reliance damages) and not allowing positive interest claims (expectation damages). It is found, however, that some cases are actually decided not in line with the meaning of the "lost opportunity" implied in international restatements. The decision in the case Vingio kno teatras v. UAB "Eika" provided implications that the expectation damages could be recovered by the aggrieved party in the precontractual relations. This obiter dictum reminds the position expressed by the Dutch Höge Raad. In the next case the plenary session of the Civil Cases Department of the Supreme Court inter alia tried to explain issues related to the scope of damages available for unfair negotiations, including unjustified refusal to enter into principal contract after signing the preliminary agreement. There the Court urged that, in order to be awarded with lost opportunity damages, the claimant had to prove that damages were actual and inevitable.The Court also stated that precontractual damages may be measured by the price difference as allowed by the Civil Code in case of non-performance of contracts. Such explanation is challenged in the pre sent article as not providing enough certainty as to which price difference the Court refers to. A remarkable case is Mikutavičius v. Kaupas where the panel of judges of the Supreme Court demonstrates its unawareness of the meaning of lost opportunity by declaring that "lost opportunity damages" are equal to the contract price of the real estate which was preliminary agreed to be purchased by the claimant. Such position of the Court is rejected in the article upon having considered the illustrations of the lost opportunity damages provided in UNIDROIT Principles as well as ex­ pressed by contract law scholars. It is concluded therefore that the Supreme Court has not established a precedent towards a uniform understanding of damages for lost opportunity yet. [From the publication]