Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSM sklep Cpg 88/94 ECLI:SI:VSMB:1994:CPG.88.94 AI generated

Appeal dismissed; newspaper ad is an invitation to treat, not a binding offer under ZOR Art. 35.

Case Number VSM sklep Cpg 88/94
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal filed by a non-party against the bankruptcy court's decision to reject a contract offer. The appellant argued for a binding agreement, but the court found the newspaper advertisement was merely an invitation to treat under Article 35 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Consequently, no contractual obligation arose, and only bankruptcy creditors possess the right to appeal the sale method, not the appellant.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 35 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; An advertisement in a newspaper constitutes an invitation to treat rather than an offer, thereby creating no binding obligation to conclude a contract.

Keywords

AI generated
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act invitation to treat bankruptcy sale procedure contractual obligation standing to appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 35 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cpg 117/2000
Appeal dismissed because bankruptcy court president, not bankruptcy senate, approves contracts under ZPPSL.
VSL sklep Cpg 928/93
Appeal dismissed; late claimant's possession of assets not established for reservation purposes.
VSM sklep Cpg 408/97
Appeal dismissed: Denationalization claimant needs final restitution order before bankruptcy sale exclusion.
VSL sklep II Cp 2673/2016
Appeal dismissed; bankruptcy administrator must approve claims in insolvency proceedings under Slovenian law.
Sklep III Ips 52/96
Supreme Court allows protection of legality request, revoking lower court rejection of recusal appeal in bankruptcy proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Pritožba se zavrne kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Oglas v časopisu je le poziv potencialnim kupcem za pošiljanje ponudb. Skladno s določilom 35. člena ZOR s tem ne nastane nobena obveza skleniti pogodbo.

Pritožnik, ki v tem stečajnem postopku ni stranka, tudi nima pravice do pritožbe. Zoper sklep sodišča o načinu prodaje imajo pritožbo samo stečajni upniki.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Pritožitelj se je po svojem pooblaščencu pravočasno pritožil zoper sklep stečajnega senata o zavrnitvi pritožiteljevega predloga za spremembo odločitve stečajnega upravitelja o tem, da ne sklene pogodbe o prodaji stečajnega dolžnika kot pravne osebe z nobenim ponudnikom.

Pritožba ni utemeljena.

Prvostopno sodišče je pravilno ugotovilo v svojem sklepu na red. št.

148 z dne 23.9.1993, da je bil oglas v časopisu le poziv potencialnim kupcem za pošiljanje ponudb. Skladno s določilom 35. člena ZOR s tem ne nastane nobena obveza skleniti pogodbo. Pritožnik, ki v tem stečajnem postopku ni stranka, tudi nima pravice do pritožbe. Zoper sklep sodišča o načinu prodaje imajo pritožbo samo stečajni upniki, med tem, ko o odločitvi stečajnega upravitelja - da ne bo sklenil pogodbe po poslanih ponudbah ne obstoja sklep- odločba, zoper katero je možna pritožba. Event. pravica do sklenitve kupne pogodbe na primer po javni dražbi, lahko uveljavlja tisti, ki meni, da je na dražbi uspel - s tožbo. V tem primeru pa ne gre za javno dražbo in zato pritožnik nima možnosti take tožbe. Prvostopno sodišče bi moralo pritožbo kot nedovoljeno zavreči.