| Popis: |
Diplomsko delo se ukvarja z hibridnimi oblikami obligacijskih pravic in s tiho družbo v pogledu na slovensko in nemško pravo. Primerjajo se tri različne oblike hibridnih pravnih razmerij, ki vsebujejo premoženjska (korporacijska) upravičenja (oz. upravičenja, podobna premoženjskim korporacijskim upravičenjem): tiho družbo, užitniško pravico in posojilo parciarične vrste. Pravna narava tihe družbe se občutno razlikuje od ostalih dveh omenjenih pravnih oblik, ker je korporacijsko razmerje. Drugače sta drugi dve razmerji v pogledu njune pravne narave obligacijski pravici. Vsi trije obravnavani instituti vzpostavljajo t.i. zunanje konkurenčno razmerje med upravičencem (t.j. upnikom v primeru parciaričnega razmerja in užitniške pravice) na eni in družbeniki gospodarske družbe, ki je zavezana kot dolžnik iz takšnega razmerja na drugi strani. To konkurenčno razmerje je zakonodajalec vzel v obzir v primeru užitniških pravic, ne pa tudi v primeru parciaričnega posojila. Drugi del naloge se ukvarja s podobnostjo in razlikami med tiho družbo, užitniško pravico in parciaričnim razmerjem. Avtorica poskuša določiti, katere značilnosti so ključne za opredelitev pravne narave konkretnega razmerja. This diplom work deals with the hybrid forms of obligatory rights and with silent society with regards to the Slovenian and German law. Three different forms of hybrid legal relationships, which include corporational property rights, have been taken into consideration: silent society, right of usufruct and partiary type of loan. The legal nature of silent society differs significantly from other two mentioned legal forms, because it is the corporational relationship. On the contrary, other two relationships are, with respect to their legal nature, obligatory rights. All three mentioned institutes mantain so-called outer competitive relationship between the rightful claimant (i.e. creditor in the case of partiary relationship and right of usufruct) and the owners of the company, which is obliged as a debtor from such a relationship on the other hand. This competitive relationship is taken into consideration by the legislator in the case of rights of usufruct, however it is not regulated in the case of partiary loan. The second part of work deals with the similarities and differences between silent society, right of usufruct and partiary relationship. Authoress tries to specify which characteristics are crucial to define the legal nature of the concrete relationship |
