Will the amended civil procedure rules improve the litigation position of people suffering a loss in motor vehicle collisions?
Yellowhammer—a whip for carriers: Who will be responsible for deterioration of perishable goods during border controls?
In September, the British media published a documentary on Operation Yellowhammer, analysing the possible effects of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union without an agreement. The legal chaos caused by a hard Brexit could lead to several days of truck stoppages at the border, creating a risk of damage to perishable goods.
A contributory role in contributing. When might an error made by a representative lead to a decrease in the amount of damages due?
Properly determining the amount of damages sought for loss of health, where a party pursuing a claim for injury partly caused the loss, can be a problem even for professional representatives of such claimants. This is because this issue raises a number of grave practical concerns, addressed by the Supreme Court in a resolution of 11 April 2019 (III CZP 105/18), and also by other bodies.
Demand guarantees are among the most popular methods of securing international commercial transactions. They may be used to secure both the payment of fees and satisfactory performance of particular works. The popularity of these guarantees (sometimes also referred to as payment guarantees) can be attributed to the fact that they are issued by trustworthy and globally recognisable financial institutions (usually banks and insurance companies), and their operation is governed by universal rules well-understood in the business community. Guarantees are also independent of the underlying relationship between the parties, and the payment conditions are based on objective criteria, eliminating the potential for unexpected interpretations and actions by the parties. Given these factors, it is understandable that disputes regarding payment guarantees can usually be avoided. However, when they do occur, they usually involve substantial sums, with the potential to affect the financial liquidity of the companies involved.
The Act on Consideration of Complaints by Financial Market Entities and on the Financial Ombudsman provides that a complaint not resolved within the stated period “is regarded as” resolved in accordance with the customer’s request. In a surprising resolution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this does not mean that a delay in consideration of a complaint mandates that it is resolved in the customer’s favour, but such a delay merely increases the burden faced by the entity during litigation. If, of course, the matter ever reaches the courts. Was this what the legislature intended?