Abstract

The gloss addresses the Supreme Court judgment concerning exploitation as provided for in Art. 388 of the Civil Code. In that judgment, the Supreme Court defines exploitation as a special case of a legal act contrary to the principles of social coexistence. Thus it takes a position in the ongoing dispute in the civil law doctrine concerning the legal nature of this institution.

The author of the gloss is critical of the Supreme Court’s position. As pointed out in the article, incorrect interpretation of Art. 388 of the Civil Code is due to its wording as well as the connotations associated in the natural language with the notion of “exploitation”. Meanwhile, both systemic and functional factors weigh in favour of regarding exploitation as a defect of the declaration of intent. The author believes that doctrinal ambiguities obstruct the application of the institution of exploitation. If reworded, Art. 388 of the Civil Code could become a socially crucial instrument of protection of the parties to obligational relationships.