II Ca 634/14
AI generated
Court dismisses appeal on pre-contractual damages, ruling deposit return claims do not expire under Art. 390 § 3 k.c.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal against the lower court's judgment ordering the return of a deposit. The plaintiff claimed the deposit should be returned after the seller failed to conclude a formal sale agreement, while the defendants argued the claim was time-barred under the new provisions of the Civil Code. The court held that a claim for the return of a deposit is distinct from pre-contractual damages and therefore does not fall under the specific limitation period rules of Article 390 § 3 of the Civil Code.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 390 § 3 k.c.; Art. 394 k.c.: A claim for the return of a deposit is not a pre-contractual damage claim and does not expire under the rules of Art. 390 § 3 k.c.
Keywords
AI generated
return of deposit
pre-contractual damages
limitation period
Civil Code
preliminary agreement
contractual liability
civil procedure
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 390 § 3 k.c.
Art. 390 § 1 k.c.
Art. 394 k.c.
Art. 98 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 98 § 3 k.p.c.
Art. 391 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 105 § 2 k.p.c.
art. 924 k.c
art. 925 k.c
art. 1030 k.c