Excessive formalism in the Czech Bill of Exchange Case Law

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F18%3A00102222" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/18:00102222 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Excessive formalism in the Czech Bill of Exchange Case Law

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The analysis show that an interpretation based on the idea of "formal rigor", according to which the interpretation of the data in the bill is to be (or at least could be) stricter and more rigid than it is in conventional legal acts, can easily result in absurd and funny conclusions. If we really should take formal requirements for bills "strictly" it would need a more convincing argumentation than just repeating the mantra of rigor cambialis or applying it automatically. When interpreting the bill statements one should take into account their overall context and their typical meaning. An interpretation is to be done in principle objectively from the view of the potential acquirer of the bill. It should not, for its own sake, "punish" small formal errors or deficiencies which can be, with a little good will, resolved by preferring the bill validity (if it is not inconsistent with its nature of course). The Czech courts only start to deviate gradually from the formalist "dances" of the past two decades. One can only hope that most of the decisions presented above will become a remembrance to the fact that "rigor cambialis" concerning formal requirements of bills was not an appropriate metaphor for the characteristics of the bills but a confusing and unclear term that could justify even the most absurd conclusions.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Excessive formalism in the Czech Bill of Exchange Case Law

Popis výsledku anglicky

The analysis show that an interpretation based on the idea of "formal rigor", according to which the interpretation of the data in the bill is to be (or at least could be) stricter and more rigid than it is in conventional legal acts, can easily result in absurd and funny conclusions. If we really should take formal requirements for bills "strictly" it would need a more convincing argumentation than just repeating the mantra of rigor cambialis or applying it automatically. When interpreting the bill statements one should take into account their overall context and their typical meaning. An interpretation is to be done in principle objectively from the view of the potential acquirer of the bill. It should not, for its own sake, "punish" small formal errors or deficiencies which can be, with a little good will, resolved by preferring the bill validity (if it is not inconsistent with its nature of course). The Czech courts only start to deviate gradually from the formalist "dances" of the past two decades. One can only hope that most of the decisions presented above will become a remembrance to the fact that "rigor cambialis" concerning formal requirements of bills was not an appropriate metaphor for the characteristics of the bills but a confusing and unclear term that could justify even the most absurd conclusions.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Jog Alam Politika

ISSN

2060-4580

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

X.

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

HU - Maďarsko

Počet stran výsledku

14

Strana od-do

59-72

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—