The venire contra factum proprium nemini licet legal maxim in legal argumentation expresses an objection against inconsistent behaviour. However, opinions regarding its significance are not uniform in legal discussion It inspires the following questions: Why was that maxim introduced into legal argumentation? Are there any systemic elements in in the pre-codification history of the maxim? Can they inspire a contemporary view on a useful method of referring to the maxim in private law and if so – how? The paper deals with these issues. The historical and comparative analysis leads to two main conclusions: firstly, immanent flexibility of the maxim should inspire moderation in declaring the venire contra factum proprium prohibition as one of the basic principles of private law. Secondly, the effect of being bound by an act by a person who wrongly caused its invalidity, which has been based on the maxim in pre-codification legal practice, is worth thinking through in the world of developed theories of legal transactions.
https://doi.org/10.32082/fp.v3i53.222
 3 Dajczak.pdf | 321 kB |
