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.

Pobierz plik (3 Dajczak.pdf)3 Dajczak.pdf321 kB
UJ logo logo Utriusque Iuris


W latach 2019–2020 czasopismo wydawane jest w ramach programu „Wsparcie dla czasopism naukowych” Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego.

Czasopismo jest ujęte w bazie European Reference Index for Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS) oraz w bazie HeinOnline, EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS), EBSCO „Central & Eastearn European Academic Source” (CEEAS), Central European Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanities (CEJSH) oraz w Scopus.


Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript. 


© Forum Prawnicze 2023