Abstract

The gloss constitutes a critical discussion of the Supreme Court decision of 19 December 2020, V CSK 295/20, which states that so-called warranty cards, i.e. warranty agreements providing for the duty to pay a flat-rate monetary benefit are not subject to moderation pursuant to Art. 484 § 2 of the Civil Code. Basically sharing the Supreme Court’s position, the author points out constructional and functional differences between contractual penalties and so-called warranty penalties which weigh against the doctrinally postulated analogous application of Art. 484 § 2 of the Civil Code in relation to the latter. At the same time the author notes that if the so-called warranty penalty specifies non-performance or faulty performance of another obligation as the warranty risk it may be considered invalid or classified as a contractual penalty disguised as a warranty agreement.