Invalidity of transactions. Proactive forms of invalidity


Invalidity of transactions. Proactive forms of invalidity

 
 
When there is a legal malpractice affecting the content of the deal, we are talking about its invalidity. Nullity of transactions has two manifest forms: nullity and destruction. For the nullity of the deal we are talking about when the defect affects its content is so substantial that it practically does not allow the transaction to have legal consequences. Poor deals can not be rehabilitated (healed). The only way for a delinquent deal to have legal consequences is that it should be concluded again. The declaration of the nullity of the transaction does not necessarily have to be done in court, since it does not have legal effects at all. Unlike tiny deals, destruction deals have legal consequences, though unintended and unwanted by parties. These transactions act as seemingly regular until the moment of a defect affecting their content. Destroyable transactions can be redeemed, ie. Strengthen if the current legislation provides for a legal remedy. If, as a result of remediation, the defect is eliminated, the destructive transaction continues to be fully effective and produces valid legal consequences. However, in the event that the derelict transaction can not be redeemed, it is treated as a negligible transaction and the legal consequences which it imposes must be erased retroactively and restoring the factual and legal position existing before the conclusion of that transaction. Announcement of cancellable transactions as well as their termination is done only by court order.
 
We also distinguish the substantial differences between the tiny and cancellable transactions:
  •  Nil trades do not give rise to any legal consequences, unlike the destructive ones that give rise to such undesirable and unwanted parties;
  • Poor deals can not be repaired in contrast to cancellable transactions where remediation is possible if current legislation allows;
  •  In the event that cancellable transactions can not be recovered, they are treated as null and void, and the legal consequences which have arisen so far should be retroactively canceled and restored the factual situation existing before the conclusion of the transaction as opposed to the negligible transactions in which such recovery does not take into account that they do not have any legal effect at all;
  • The declaration and termination of the derelict transactions are made only by court proceedings, as opposed to the nil, where the judicial announcement is not mandatory.


«Back
 

Invalidity of transactions. Proactive forms of invalidity Invalidity of transactions. Proactive forms of invalidity