Cessio legis During Court Proceedings for Payment: Withdrawal of the Suit with a Waiver of the Claim Resulting in Damage to the Purchaser of the Claim

Magdalena Surowiec

Abstract


The article is of a scientific-research nature. The author based her conclusions on the literature and jurisdiction regarding the assignment of claims and on the withdrawal of a lawsuit with a waiver of the claim. A hypothetical situation is presented, in which a plaintiff, during the proceedings concerning the claim for payment, assigns to a third party a claim covered by the lawsuit, after entering into a dispute. A purchaser of a claim is entitled to enter the proceedings, pursuant to Article 192 point 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the consent of the opposing party (defendant). In practice, the judicature extends the interpretation of this provision to the consent of both parties to the proceedings. The problem arises in a situation in which the plaintiff does not consent to the purchaser of the claim being replaced. The latter may thus be deprived of court proceedings through no fault of his own. In addition, the current plaintiff no longer has any interest in continuing the proceedings and may withdraw the lawsuit with a waiver of the claim. The effect of waiving the claim will be, in a way, releasing the defendant from his debt, and thus changing the nature of the claim into natural obligation. The above-mentioned action of the plaintiff, the seller of the claim in the process, will cause damage to the purchaser of the claim up to the amount of the withdrawn lawsuit together with the waiver of the claim. The article indicates the possibility of a broader perspective on subjective changes in the process and the material and legal effects of the parties’ formal actions.


Keywords


waiver of the claim; withdrawal of the suit; plaintiff; third party

References


LITERATURE

Gnela B., Ubezpieczenia gospodarce. Wybrane zagadnienia prawne, Warszawa 2011.

Heropolitańska I., Wstąpienie w prawa wierzyciela (art. 518 k.c.), [in:] Prawne zabezpieczenia zapłaty wierzytelności, Warszawa 2018.

Jastrzębski J., Przelew wierzytelności w orzecznictwie Sądu Najwyższego, „Glosa” 2006, no. 2.

Kotowicz M., Zaspokojenie żądania pozwu przez pozwanego w toku sprawy przy jednoczesnym kwestionowaniu zasadności powództwa. Glosa do wyroku s. apel. z dnia 6 czerwca 2017 r., V ACa 687/16, „Przegląd Sądowy” 2020, no. 6.

Manowska M., Komentarz do art. 192, [in:] A. Adamczuk, P. Pruś, M. Radwan, M. Sieńko, E. Stefańska, M. Manowska, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, vol. 1, Warszawa 2020.

Manowska M., Komentarz do art. 203, [in:] A. Adamczuk, P. Pruś, M. Radwan, M. Sieńko, E. Stefańska, M. Manowska, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz, vol. 1, Warszawa 2020.

Marcewicz O., Cofnięcie pozwu ze zrzeczeniem się roszczenia po zbyciu w toku sprawy rzeczy lub prawa objętych sporem, „Przegląd Sądowy” 2019, no. 3.

Piaskowska O.M., Komentarz do art. 192, [in:] M. Kuchnio, A. Majchrowska, K. Panfil, J. Parafianowicz, A. Partyk, A. Rutkowska, D. Rutkowski, A. Turczyn, O.M. Piaskowska, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Postępowanie procesowe. Komentarz, Warszawa 2020.

Piaskowska O.M., Komentarz do art. 203, [in:] M. Kuchnio, A. Majchrowska, K. Panfil, J. Parafianowicz, A. Partyk, A. Rutkowska, D. Rutkowski, A. Turczyn, O.M. Piaskowska, Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Postępowanie procesowe. Komentarz, Warszawa 2020.

Stefaniuk K., Przeniesienie przez pozwanego uzyskanego samowolnie posiadania na inną osobę w toku procesu posesoryjnego – skutki materialne i procesowe. Glosa do uchwały SN z dnia 29 czerwca 2016 r., III CZP 25/16, „Przegląd Sądowy” 2018, no. 2.

Telenga P., Komentarz do art. 203, [in:] Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz aktualizowany, vol. 1: Art. 1–729, ed. A. Jakubecki, Gdańsk 2019.

LEGAL ACTS

Act of 23 April 1964 – Civil Code (consolidated text Journal of Laws 2020, item 1740).

Act of 17 November 1964 – Civil Procedure Code (consolidated text Journal of Laws 2020, item 1575 as amended).

CASE LAW

Decision of the Supreme Court of 11 January 2013, I CZ 184/12, LEX no. 1288613.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 27 May 2015, II CSK 461/14, LEX no. 1764801.

Decision of the Supreme Court of 24 February 2016, I CSK 81/15, LEX no. 2015120.

Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Kraków of 17 January 2013, I ACa 1150/12, LEX no. 1362725.

Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 10 April 2013, I ACa 1224/12, LEX no. 1428248.

Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk of 24 September 2015, I ACa 31/14, LEX no. 1917071.

Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 11 December 2018, VI ACa 673/17, LEX no. 2728642.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 15 March 1955, II CR 1449/54, LEX no. 118007.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 22 December 2000, II CKN 358/00, LEX no. 52545.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 2 February 2012, II CSK 306/11, LEX no. 1170223.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 3 July 2015, IV CSK 595/14, LEX no. 1917369.

Judgement of the Supreme Court of 24 May 2019, I CSK 225/18, LEX no. 2675113.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.1.307-323
Data publikacji: 2021-03-31 14:40:39
Data złożenia artykułu: 2019-10-07 09:50:09


Statistics

Total abstract view - 241
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0 PDF (Język Polski) - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Magdalena Surowiec

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.