Abstract

The commented verdict of the Supreme Court concerns admissibility of defences basing on debtor’s personal relations with the endorser against an endorsee for collection, and also the time limit for the capacity to fill in an open bill of exchange. The commentary focuses on the consequences of debtor’s effective setting up a defence of filling in an open bill of exchange against the agreements which have been entered into, separating the situation whereby the defence leads to undermining the bill of exchange obligation from the situation whose consequences will be limited to modifying the contents of the obligation. The analysis refers also to the issue of debtor’s protection against the consequences of an obligation unlimited in time, which can be accomplished either by the existence of the capacity to fill in an open bill of exchange, or by limiting creditor’s latitude in shaping the contents of debtor’s bill of exchange obligation.