The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
74
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
‘
ABSTRACT
This article analyzes the invalidity and types of civil rights agreements, current problems in
practice, as well as the problems, grounds and consequences of invalidating transactions
made by people who do not understand the importance of their actions, and the approaches
of various scientists.
KEYWORDS
Transactions, Invalid Transactions, Disputed Transactions, Limited Mobility, Incompetence,
Invalidation Of Transactions Made By Persons Who Do Not Understand The Importance Of
Their Actions.
INTRODUCTION
Compositions
of
making
voidable
transactions with flaws of will significant
number of transactions made with flaws of
will are named in the norms of civil
legislation as voidable. The disputability of
such transactions is explained by the fact
that the will, determining the inner side of
human behavior, depends entirely on the
characteristics of a particular subject. That
is why the right to challenge actions that
violate such a condition of the validity of
transactions as compliance with their will
belongs to a circle of persons strictly
limited by law. In the norms of the Civil
The Concept Of The Transaction Concluded As A Result Of
Defects In The Ability To Behave And Its Peculiarities
Usmonova Muniskhon Yuldosh Kizi
Teacher Of Civil Law Department Of The, Tashkent State University Of Law, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theamericanjou
rnals.com/index.php/ta
jpslc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
75
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, there
are several types of voidable transactions
made in violation of will
1
. The first set of
voidable transactions should include
transactions made by a citizen who is
incapable of understanding the meaning of
his actions or managing them (Article 121 of
the Civil Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan).
The composition of such a voidable
transaction is characterized by the fact that
that legally significant actions were
committed by a citizen who has unlimited
legal capacity, but at the time of the
transaction was temporarily unable to
consciously express his will
2
.
As a result of
such a morbid condition or alcoholic, toxic
or drug intoxication, a citizen is not able to
fully realize the nature or significance of his
actions or to direct them. The will when
making such voidable transactions is either
completely
absent
or
significantly
distorted, that is, it differs significantly
from that which would have formed in a
person without the effects on him of the
consequences of a painful or other
condition.
The moment of a contested transaction is
the moment of manifestation of will in the
form necessary for the occurrence of the
legal consequences of such a transaction.
1
See: S.V. Potapenko, A.V. Zarubin. Invalidity of
transactions with flaws of will caused by the guilty
behavior of the counterparty or other persons //
Izvestia IGEA. 2008. No. 3. P. 123.
2
See: V.L. Invalidity of a transaction made by a
citizen unable to understand the meaning of his
In this case, the flaw of will in this case is
manifested in the discrepancy between the
expression of will, made in the required
form, aimed at the emergence, change or
termination of civil rights or obligations,
the internal content of the will of a person
3
. In the legal literature, as examples, cases
are given when the state of clear
consciousness of a person is disturbed as a
result of a sharp and significant increase in
div temperature, the onset of a sudden
temporary personality disorder, which is
not a reason for depriving a citizen of legal
capacity, etc. Thus, the disputability of this
transaction is expressed in the possibility
of recognizing it as invalid due to the
temporary incapacity of the person that
took place at the time of the expression of
will. Therefore, this composition does not
include transactions made by persons with
limited legal capacity due to not reaching a
certain age (Articles 22, 27, 29 of the Civil
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan), or by
persons deprived of legal capacity or
limited in it on the basis of a court decision
(Article 30, 31 of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan). This circumstance
also determines the existence of the right
to challenge the transaction from the
person himself, who at the time of its
execution did not act in accordance with
his actual will, who subsequently restored
the ability to comprehend the factual
actions or to direct them // Society: politics,
economics, law. 2012. No. 1. S. 153.
3
See: N.N. Alekberova The vice of will as the basis
for the invalidity of imaginary and sham
transactions // Actual problems of Russian law. 2013.
No. 3. P. 282.
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
76
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
nature of his actions and realize their legal
consequences.
The establishment of temporary incapacity
is carried out on the basis of information
objectively confirming that the person at
the moment of expressing his will was not
able to understand the meaning of his
actions or to direct them. In this case, only
those circumstances are taken into
account that could objectively influence
the formation of the will of the victim. So,
for example, the FAS of the East Siberian
District, refusing to satisfy the cassation
appeal, did not admit the applicant's
arguments that the latter, when making
the transaction, was in a state of
temporary incapacity caused by severe
stress and pain in the liver, not seeing in
this the facts indicating the applicant's
inability at the time of the conclusion of the
disputed transaction to realize the
significance of his actions or to control
them
4
. Even when facts are established
that indicate the presence of any
personality disorder of the person who
made the transaction, this is not enough to
invalidate the transaction.
Thus, in particular, the FAS of the Volgo-
Vyatka District, having established that the
applicant, at the time of the sale and
purchase agreements, showed signs of
mixed personality disorder, at the same
4
See: Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly
Service of the East Siberian District of 01/29/2014 on
case No. A19- 6144/2013 // ConsultantPlus reference
and legal system (date of treatment 06/06/2014).
time noted that the latter, when
concluding
the
agreement,
acted
deliberately,
purposefully,
maintained
adequate verbal contact with others, took
into account the current circumstances,
acted in accordance with his plan. Thus, the
court, despite the availability of medical
data on personality disorder, did not
recognize
the
fact
of
temporary
incapacity
5
. In addition, conclusions about
the action of a person in such a state can be
formed both on the basis of an analysis of
the mental state of the participant in the
transaction, and by virtue of the situation
that existed at the time of its commission.
External circumstances such as the
behavior of a person, the use of alcohol or
drugs, may also be relevant to establishing
the fact that a party to the transaction is
unable to understand the meaning of their
actions or to direct them.
Therefore, when assessing the internal,
mental state of a person at the time of the
transaction, it is not sufficient to use only
the medical criterion without taking into
account other reasons, due to which the
citizen is not able to realize the significance
of his actions or to direct them. A similar
condition can occur in a person who does
not suffer from any mental disorder,
therefore, the circumstances of the actual
transaction
(incoherent
speech,
disorientation as a result of taking drugs,
5
See: Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly
Service of the Volgo-Vyatka District of January 26,
2009 on case No. A79-2594/2007 // ConsultantPlus
Reference and Legal System (date of treatment
06.06.2014).
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
77
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
inappropriate behavior, fever, etc.) should
not be ignored. The viciousness of the
transactions in question is not affected by
whether the victim himself has brought
himself to such a state, in which he was not
able to understand the nature and meaning
of his actions.
In this aspect, the provisions of Art. 121 of
the Civil Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan significantly differ from the
rules established in Art. 1078 of the Civil
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
according to which a citizen is not
responsible for harm caused in a state in
which he was not aware of the nature of his
actions or could not direct them.
However, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Art.
1078 of the Civil Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, such a tortfeasor is not
exempt from liability if he himself has
brought himself to a borderline state as a
result of the consumption of alcoholic
beverages, the use of drugs or narcotic
substances, or in any other way. At the
same time, despite the fact that the
content of Art. 121 of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, the term "citizen"
is used, its use is also permissible in relation
to transactions made by legal entities. This
is due to the fact that organizations acquire
rights and obligations through the actions
of citizens performing their labor or
representative functions. They acquire the
6
Nersesov N.O. Selected Works on Representation
and Securities in Civil Law. M.: Statut, 1998. - p. 81.
(Classics of Russian civil law)
authority to act on behalf of a legal entity
on the basis of a power of attorney or by
virtue of the provisions of the constituent
documents of such an organization. In this
regard, given that the law does not
establish on whose behalf a citizen who
makes such a contested transaction should
act, it should be recognized that a situation
is possible in which a citizen, who does not
understand the nature and meaning of his
actions, expresses the legally significant
will of a legal entity. As noted on this
occasion
by
N.O.
Nersesov,
“a
representative, making a deal, expresses
his own will, but the latter must be free,
unconstrained as a necessary condition for
the validity of this transaction; the will of
the principal has nothing to do with it; it
can be taken into account only when
discussing the validity of representative
authority ”
6
. Another feature of this rule is
the granting of the right to challenge a
completed transaction not only to the
citizen, whose direct actions are the
transaction, but also to other persons
whose rights or legitimate interests are
affected as a result of its execution.
Individuals or legal entities on whose
behalf the transaction was made may be
the specified other persons. It should be
noted that the recognition of the
commission of the specified voidable
transaction as a civil offense is a very
complex matter and often depends on a
number of factual circumstances of its
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
78
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
conclusion. Thus, the completion of some
of these transactions does not fully
correspond to the signs of wrongdoing.
This circumstance is primarily due to the
fact that the counterparty to such a
transaction is not always able to establish
whether a person at the time of
committing legally significant actions can
understand their meaning and control
them. At the same time, if the reason for
such a state of a citizen was alcoholic, toxic
or drug intoxication, the confluence of
diseases or a state of passion, while the
counterparty of the said citizen is familiar
with him and communicated with him
when the latter was in a relatively normal
state and in this connection was capable of
at the time of the transaction to give an
objective and adequate assessment of his
psyche, such a counterparty can be
considered an offender.
This is permissible due to the identification
of the fault of the counterparty, which,
knowing or having the opportunity to
know that the citizen is in a state that
prevents
him
from
realizing
the
significance of his actions and the ability to
direct them, he went on to make the above
transaction. In addition, the counterparty
will be considered to a greater extent the
subject of a civil offense if he himself
brought this citizen into a state in which
the latter could not understand the
meaning and nature of his actions or
control them.
The citizen himself who does not
understand the meaning of his actions at
the time of the conclusion of the
transaction or is not able to lead them, but
who has brought himself into this state as
a result of drinking alcohol or using drugs,
should also be recognized as an offender.
It should also be noted that among the
persons whom the law gives the right to
challenge this transaction, along with a
citizen who did not understand the
meaning of his actions, the Civil Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan also names persons
whose rights or legitimate protected
interests were violated by the transaction.
In this regard, if the citizen who made the
transaction did not independently bring
himself into a state in which he was aware
of the meaning and nature of his actions or
could not direct them, and at the same
time the counterparty of such a person did
not know or could not know that the latter
was not aware of what was happening ,
such a voidable deal,
In other cases, the commission of such a
contested
transaction
should
be
recognized as an offense, in which one or
both of its participants can be the offender.
The affected person is a party to the
transaction who, at the time of its
execution, is not able to realize the nature
and significance of its actions or to direct
them, as well as other persons whose
rights and interests are violated by this
transaction. The object of a contested
transaction concluded by a capable citizen
who was, at the time of its execution, in a
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
79
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
state in which he was not able to realize the
nature and significance of his actions or to
direct them, as an offense are the
subjective rights and legally protected
interests of the said citizen or other
persons.
The objective side of this civil offense is
expressed in the actions of the subjects to
complete the transaction, one participant
of which, being a capable citizen, is at the
time of its conclusion in a state where he
did not realize the meaning and nature of
his actions or could not direct them. At the
same time, when making a transaction, the
specified citizen did not have a real will to
carry it out. The state of temporary
incapacity of a citizen who makes a
transaction may be the result of the unfair
behavior of his counterparty, independent
actions of the injured person, or other
reasons beyond the control of the
participants in such a transaction. These
actions damage the rights and interests of
this citizen or third parties. Between the
behavior of the guilty persons involved in
the contested transaction, and its unlawful
consequences must be causal.
The subjects of the offense are: an adult
citizen who was not recognized in the
established manner as incapable or limited
in legal capacity, but who was at the time
of the transaction in a state in which he was
not able to realize the nature and
significance of his actions or to direct such
actions; any delinquent person acting as a
counterparty of the above citizen, who is
aware of or has reason to believe that
another participant is not able to
understand the meaning of his actions or
to direct his actions, or has independently
brought this citizen into a state of
temporary incapacity. not recognized in
the prescribed manner as incapable or
limited in legal capacity, but at the time of
the transaction in a state in which he was
not able to realize the nature and
significance of his actions or to direct such
actions; any delinquent person acting as a
counterparty of the above citizen, who is
aware of or has reason to believe that
another participant is not able to
understand the meaning of his actions or
to direct his actions, or has independently
brought this citizen into a state of
temporary incapacity. not recognized in
the prescribed manner as incapable or
limited in legal capacity, but at the time of
the transaction in a state in which he was
not able to realize the nature and
significance of his actions or to direct such
actions; any delinquent person acting as a
counterparty of the above citizen, who is
aware of or has reason to believe that
another participant is not able to
understand the meaning of his actions or
to direct his actions, or has independently
brought this citizen into a state of
temporary incapacity.
The subjective side of this contested
transaction is characterized by the guilt of
the offenders in the form of intent or
negligence. The definition of intent or
negligence here has legal significance only
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 11-2021
80
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
November 30, 2021 |
Pages:
74-80
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue11-11
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
in relation to the counterparty - a citizen
who is unable to understand the meaning
and nature of his actions or to direct them.
This is due to the fact that, in accordance
with paragraph 3 of Art. 121 of the Civil
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (taking
into account the provisions of clause 1 of
Art. 171 of the Civil Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan), the guilty counterparty is
obliged to compensate the injured citizen
for the losses caused by the challenged
transaction.
REFERENCES
1.
Nersesov N.O. Selected Works on
Representation and Securities in Civil
Law. M.: Statut, 1998. - p. 81. (Classics of
Russian civil law)
2.
Resolution
of
the
Federal
Antimonopoly Service of the Volgo-
Vyatka District of January 26, 2009 on
case
No.
A79-2594/2007
//
ConsultantPlus Reference and Legal
System (date of treatment 06.06.2014).
3.
S.V. Potapenko, A.V. Zarubin. Invalidity
of transactions with flaws of will
caused by the guilty behavior of the
counterparty or other persons //
Izvestia IGEA. 2008. No. 3. P. 123.
4.
V.L. Invalidity of a transaction made by
a citizen unable to understand the
meaning of his actions or to direct them
// Society: politics, economics, law.
2012. No. 1. S. 153.
5.
N.N. Alekberova The vice of will as the
basis for the invalidity of imaginary and
sham transactions // Actual problems of
Russian law. 2013. No. 3. P. 282.
6.
Resolution
of
the
Federal
Antimonopoly Service of the East
Siberian District of 01/29/2014 on case
No. A19- 6144/2013 // ConsultantPlus
reference and legal system (date of
treatment 06/06/2014).
