Are all the damages reimbursed in a case of pre-contractual liability?

Darbe lyginamuoju aspektu analizuojama, kokios formos ir dydžio nuostoliai galimi ikisutartinės civilinės atsakomybės atveju Lietuvoje ir užsienio valstybėse. Dėl nepakankamo nuostolių, patirtų ikisutartiniuose santykiuose, teisinio reglamentavimo bei neapibrėžtumo, kaip šie nuostoliai turėtų būti apskaičiuojami, susidaro sunkumai nustatant jų dydį ir formą. Antroje dalyje atlikta užsienio šalių teisės normų, taikomų ikisutartiniams santykiams, apžvalga rodo, kad nereikėtų labai išskirti ikisutartinių ir sutartinių santykių priteistinų nuostolių aspektu. Ši tendencija pastebima ir Lietuvos teismų praktikoje. Trečiojoje ir ketvirtojoje darbo dalyse analizuojamos priemonės, taikomos ikisutartiniams nuostoliams atlyginti. Išanalizavus užsienio valstybių ir Lietuvos teismų praktiką bei pozityviąją teisę daroma išvada, kad yra penki būdai ikisutartinių santykių nuostoliams išieškoti: 1) restitucija; 2) pasitikėjimo nuostoliai; 3) prarastos galimybės piniginė vertė; 4) tikėtini nuostoliai ir 5) netesybos. Gali būti atlyginami deliktiniai ir sutartiniai nuostoliai. Restitucijos, pasitikėjimo nuosotlių ir prarastos galimybės piniginės vertės nuostlių atlyginimas, remiantis deliktinės atsakomybės taisyklėmis, nukelia asmenį į tokią padėtį, kurioje jis būtų, jei derybos nebūtų įvykusios, tai yra, gina asmens status quo interesus. O tikėtinų nuostolių institutas, taikant derybas pažeidusiam asmeniui sutartinės atsakomybės taisykles, bando asmenį nukelti į tokią padėtį, kurioje jis būtų, jei derybos būtų tinkamai ir sąžiningai įvykusios bei būtų pasiektas susitarimas. Netesybos, numatytos preliminariojoje sutartyje, taip pat priklauso sutartinių nuostolių institutui. Jos atlieka kompensuojamąją funkciją ir reiškia, kad ieškovui nereikia įrodinėti patirtų nuostolių dydžio. Apibendrinant galima teigti, jog nuostoliai, patirti ikisutartinių santykių metu, atlyginami tik iš dalies. Nepaisant to, kad teismai siekia atstatyti teisingumą, dėl nepakankamo ikisutartinių nuostolių atlyginimo reglamentavimo ir ne visada pakankamo aiškumo, kokius metodus taikyti nagrinėjant bylas, bei pačių bylų individualumo, didžiausia yra tikimybė kompensuoti realiai patirtas išlaidas ir apginti asmens status quo interesus.Having established a provision of pre-contractual liability in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania which came into force on July 1, 2001, the question of the reimbursement of pre-contactual damages became of particular importance for the Lithuanian law system. Article 6.163 of the Civil Code expressly establishes that “[a] party who begins negotiations or negotiates in bad faith shall be liable for the damages caused to the other party”. According to the article 6.249, an aggrieved party can demand for the compensation of expenses incurred (direct damages) as well as the lost profit. However, due to incomplete judicial regulation regarding the pre-contractual damages, difficulties arise when assessing the amount and form of the damages incurred in the pre-contractual stage. The review of the rules of law applicable to pre-contractual negotiations demonstrates that pre-contractual relations compare to contractual ones and should not be separated when assessing the losses. Five possible measures for recovering losses in pre-contractual liability have been discussed. 1) Restitution damages focus on defendant’s wrongful gain. The wrongdoing party is required to return the amount gained during the pre-contractual negotiations to the injured party. Restitution is measured not by the losses of the plaintiff but rather by the amount wrongfully gained by the defendant. If one person renders services at the request of another and the latter obtains benefit from the sevices, even if the benefit is not really tangible, the law ordinarily implies a promise to pay for the services. Thus restitution is means of restoring the plaintiff’s status quo. 2) Reliance interest aims to restore the plaintiff to the status quo which means to the position she would have been in had the negotiations never started. However, reliance damages are measured by what the plaintiff has lost and not by what the defendant has gained. 3) Lost opportunity is part of reliance remedies, however it was discussed separately because in Lithuania it is quite new and its application is not always clear. There are two situations when an aggrieved party can demand for the compensation for the value of the lost opportunity in the pre-contractual stage. First, when a party lost an opportunity to conclude a contract with a third person and there is causation between the culpable behavior of a wrongdoing party and the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and when the lost opportunity is possible to be proved. In this case a party in breach can recover the difference in price between the possible contract and the broken contract. Second, when during lengthy negotiations with a bad faith partner a plaintiff lost profits she would have made during the delay before concluding another contract. 4) Expectation interest is aimed at something the plaintiff never had but expected to receive had the contract been signed. If negotiations had reached such an advanced stage that preliminary agreement had been signed and the parties could reasonably assume that the contract would have been concluded, then expectation damages may be recoverable. When calculating the expectation damages court will take into account the gains not made and the losses actually suffered. 5) Liquidated damages are damages designated by the parties during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation in case of a breach of preliminary agreement. A liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if its purpose is to punish the wrongdoing party in breach rather than to compensate the injured party. Restitution damages, reliance interest and lost opportunity based on rules of delictual liability aim to restore the injured party to the status quo, a position she would have been had the negotiations never started. Expectation interest based on rules of contractual liability aimes to put the injured party to the position she would have been had the contract been signed. Liquidated damages also belong to the contractual rules of law. They are aimed to put an injured party in the position designated in the preliminary agreement. The main issue of this master project is whether all the damages are reimbursed in case of pre-contractual liability. The hypothesis is that all the damages are reimbursed in case of pre-contractual liability. The hypothesis has been proved partially. This means that the injured party is not always fully reimbursed in cases of pre-contractual liability. Regardless of the fact that the court always aims to restore justice between the parties, the most common compensation applies to actually suffered damages and restores the injured party’s status quo because of insufficient regulation of the pre-contractual damages reimbursement and uncertainty of what remedies should be used in each particular case when assessing the damages. It is important to note that when assessing the damages suffered in pre-contractual liability the actual will of the parties is very significant. If the parties informed each other of their intent not to be bound by the preliminary agreement then the aggrieved party may not expect recovery of losses suffered. Due to insufficient regulation of pre-contractual damages reimbursement the parties participating in negotiations should seek to clearly define the possibility of termination of preliminary agreement at any time and/ or to determine the liquidated damages.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta