Whether Acceptance by Silence Does Not Violate the Principle of Contract Freedom?

Magistro baigiamajame darbe nagrinėjamas klausimas – ar akceptas tylėjimu nepažeidžia sutarties laisvės principo? Diskutuotina, ar tylėjimas kaip akceptas teisingai ir pagrįstai pripažįstama laisvos valios išraiškos forma ir as toks pripažinimas nepažeidžiaja sutarties laisvės principo bei laisvai valiai. Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje tylėjimas kaip akceptas sutartiniuose santykiuose nėra giliau išnagrinėtas ir nėra aiškiai nustatyta ar jis nepažeidžia sutarties laisvės principo bei laisvos valios. Nėra aiškiai nustatyta ar tylėjimas tam tikrose situacijose apskritai gali būti nurodytas kaip valios išraiška sukelianti teisines pasekmes nepažeisdama kitos sutarties šalies interesus. Todėl darbo tikslas ir yra išanalizuoti ar teisinėje sistemoje pasireiškiantis akceptas tylėjimu nepažeidžia sutarties laisvės principo. Siekiant pasiekti darbo tikslą išanalizuota akcepto tylėjimu pasireiškimo problematika sutarčių teisėje, nustatyta kaip pasireiškia šalių valia sudarant sutartis, išsiaiškinta kaip akceptas tylėjimu reguliuojamas kitose šalyse, išanalizuotas santykis tarp akcepto tylėjimu, kaip laisvos valios išraiška, ir sutarties laisvės principo. Atlikto tyrimo pagrindu darbe iškelta hipotezė – akceptas tylėjimu nepažeidžia sutarties laisvės principo, pasitvirtino. Magistro baigiamajį darbą sudaro keturios dalys. Pirmojoje dalyje nagrinėjamas ofertos ir akcepto modelio samprata. Antroje darbo dalyje prieita prie išvados, kad LR CK 6.173 straipsnio 3 dalis yra ydinga, kuri leidžia oferentui vienašališkai įpareigoti ofertos adresatą sudaryti sutartį ir nesant jokiai ankstesnei egzistuojančiai praktikai pagal kurią būtų įprasta akceptuoti tylint. Nustatyta, kad tylėjimo kaip valios išraiškos negalima pavadinti, kadangi tylėjimas nėra aktyvus veiksmas, kokia turėtų būti valios išraiška. Tylėjimas gali būti skirtingai suprantamas šalims, nes gali neatitikti vidinės valios turinio. Trečiojoje ir ketvirtoje dalyje prieita prie išvados, kad ofertoje įrašant sąlygą, kad tylėjimas gali būti pripažįstamas akceptu nesant ankstesniems egzistuojantiems sutarties šalių santykiams ar papročiams, tai yra įpareigojamas asmuo sutartimi adresuojant jam ofertą, o tai pažeidžia sutarties laisvės principą. Magistro baigiamajame darbe yra taikomi šie metodai: apibendrinamasis, lyginamasi, aprašomasis, lingvistinis, dokumentų analizės bei sisteminis analizės.This Master Degree paper analyzes a question whether acceptance by silence does not violate the principle of contract freedom. We discuss if the silence acceptance is a just and correct form of a free will expression and if the recognition does not violate contract freedom principle and a free will. In Lithuanian legal system acceptance by silence in contractual relations hasn‘t been analyzes profoundly when it is considered to be acceptance and if the recognition does not violate contract freedom principle and a free will. We feel a lack of analysis in terms of this topic and there is no discussion on specific features. We also have no clear position whether the silence in some situations could be considered as an expression of will in general causing legal aftermath and not violating the interest of other contractual party. So, the aim of this Paper is to analyze whether the acceptance by silence does not violate contract freedom principle. In order to achieve this aim the following objectives have been implemented: to detect how the parties’ will is expressed in contractual relations, to point out how the acceptance by silence is regulated in other countries, to analyze a link between the acceptance by silence as an expression of a free will, and a principle of contract freedom. Pursuant to the conducted research the hypothesis is as follows: the acceptance by silence violates the principle of freedom of contract. It has been proved. This Master Degree Paper consists of four parts. The first part discusses the offer and the acceptance model that makes one person an offering party for another to acceptance the offer. This model is a typical in all legal systems in Europe. Tee states that haven‘t laid down regulatory provisions, consider the offer-acceptance model as the main one, but it differs, regarding the state. The second part discusses how the acceptance by silence is expressed in pre-contractual relations, analyzes the definition of a will of the contractual and whether it is legal to recognize the acceptance by silence as an expression of a free will. This part overviews the regulation of the acceptance by silence in other countries’ legislation, It has been detected that the continental system and the international legal acts (inc. art. 6.173 p. 1 of the Civil Code of Lithuania) express a general provision that silence itself does not mean the acceptance and commonly the acceptance or rejects to conclude a contract if not answered to an offer. However, the CC of the LR provides exceptions, when the actual contractual relations or customs allow it or it is laid down in the laws or in the offer. The latter generates difficulties and contradictions, so it is concluded that art. 6.173 p. 3 is wrong, as when the offer addressee is not interested in the contract and ignores offer without expressing any will, the provision allows offeror to bond unilaterally to conclude the contract without any practice (links, customs) that could be traditional for acceptance by silence. It has been detected that the acceptance by silence cannot be considered as an expression of will, as silence is not an action, on the contrary to will expression. In is inaction that does not mean any activity. Silence could be understood by the parties differently, as it could not match the inner content of will thus imposing a lack of will in a transaction. According to the legal systems of the UK, Germany and the U.S. there are also some exceptions when the acceptance by silence is legally bounding. The acceptance by silence is allowed in case of a long-term relationship that is a common manner to conclude the contracts or it is common due to the traditions. In German legal system additional “factual contracts” are established that are concluded without negotiations and with a sufficient number of factual actions. The American legal acts put that the acceptor is to understand clearly that the silence could mean the acceptance, but the offer should be beneficial to the former (ex. compensation, etc.). The third part presents a brief overview on a principle of contracts as one of the main legal principle that is expressed by a free will, also analyzes how it regulates the will of the parties and the restrictions to it. It has been detected that wrong transactions that violate rights of other people, do not meet will of the parties or are understood differently, also unclear or impossible to understand, as laid down in the laws, have no legal power as violate the principle of contract freedom. According to the Lithuania’s Superior Court decisions, legal acts and academic insights, the conclusion is that the principle of contract freedom is not absolute and despite each party’s right to select its contractual rights and obligations freely and express its will, the regulatory norms do not allow concluding transactions that violate imperative provisions, public order or good morality in the state. The final part analyzes a link between the acceptance by silence and the principle of contract freedom. The conclusion is that if including conditions that silence is considered to be the acceptance without prior relations or traditions, it is an obligation for a person to accept the offer, so it violates the principle of contract freedom. An offeror has a right to conclude any contract with any person; it is his/her free will or has a right to ignore an offer without expressing any will, as the principle of contract freedom put it. Methods: generalization (for literature), comparative (for foreign practice), descriptive (limits of legal concepts and possible meanings), document analysis (for legal acts, legal literature and court decisions) and systemic (acceptance by silence and its link with the principle of contract freedom).Teisės fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta