Abstract

The article discusses the issue of interpretation of civil law contracts concerning broadly conceived provision of services. Discrepancies in the qualification of a specific work contract and other contracts for the provision of services (mandate and similar contracts) in social security and civil law cases have been presented. It has been pointed out that there is no justification for different qualifications of certain services depending on the field of law. Consequently, it has been found that legal acts should be qualified by courts in a uniform manner.