REASON-CAUSE AS AN ESSENTIAL ASSUMPTION TO OCCURRENCE VALID CONTACT

Abstract

The basic legal instrument for the exchange of goods and services in domestic and international trade is the contract of obligation. For the conclusion of a valid contract, four basic (essential) assumptions must be met: there must be contracting parties who are capable of concluding the contract, the parties must reach an agreement of their wills, there must be a suitable subject for which the contract would be concluded and, finally, there must be a basis (cause) for which the contract is concluded. The reason of contractual obligation is one of the contentious issues in legal science. In legal thought, historically, there have been different theories about the reason as an essential assumption for the formation of a valid contract, ranging from theories according to which the reason is one of the principal assumptions, to theories that the basis is not essential for the formation of a valid contract at all. At its essence, the reason is what appears as the purpose for which an obligation is undertaken. Any person who enters into a contract and assumes obligations to another, does so for a purpose. That purpose in legal terminology is called the reason or cause of a contractual obligation. Тhe obligations relationships Law does not define the term reason (cause) of the contract, but it conditions the formation and validity of the contract with the existence of a permissible reason, and prescribes that any contractual obligation must have a permissible reason i.e. be in accordance with the Constitution, laws and good customs. Otherwise, if the reason does not exist, or if it is inadmissible, the contract is null and void.
As a rule, the cause, the purpose for which the contract is concluded, should be visible, not only to the contracting parties who have assumed certain obligations with the contract, but also to third parties. However, the obligations relationships Law establishes the assumption that a contractual obligation has a reason even though it is not expressed, which means that in situations where the cause is not visible, legal matter cannot be considered abstract and therefore impermissible. The legal assumption is that every contract has a reason. If one of the parties claims that the reason does not exist, it must prove it. This, in the spirit of the maxim favor negotii potior valeat quam pereat, i.e., that the legal matter should be maintained in force, if possible.