Odškodninska odgovornost strokovnjakov nasproti tretjim osebam

Dular, Drago (author), Možina, Damjan (mentor)

Kadar strokovnjak posreduje informacijo v izvajanju svojega poklica, se to vrsto odškodninske odgovornosti uvršča v poklicno odgovornost pripadnikov posameznih poklicnih skupin, npr. odvetnikov, arhitektov, revizorjev, davčnih svetovalcev in cenilcev nepremičnin. Za navedene pripadnike je značilno, da nastopajo v svobodnih poklicih, zaradi česar pripravljajo strokovna mnenja za svoje kliente oziroma naročnike na podlagi pogodb. Glede na to ni nobenega dvoma, da je strokovnjak odškodninsko odgovoren svojemu klientu, če izdela pomanjkljivo strokovno mnenje, na podlagi takšne pogodbe. Vprašanje pa je, ali lahko strokovnjaki na podlagi navedenih pogodb odškodninsko odgovarjajo tudi tretjim osebam, ki s strokovnjaki niso v pogodbenih razmerjih, vendar so se na ta mnenja zanesle. V primerjalnem pravu so o tem različne rešitve. Če se je tretja oseba zanesla na strokovno mnenje, ni izključeno, da je z naročnikom tega mnenja v družinskem, sorodstvenem ali delovnopravnem razmerju. V teh primerih razmerja med naročniki in tretjimi osebami temeljijo na interesih, ki so med seboj primerljivi, zaradi česar naročnik strokovnega mnenja nastopa v razmerju do strokovnjaka kot zastopnik tretje osebe in na tej podlagi uveljavlja poleg svojih interesov tudi interese tretje osebe. Pri tem gre za to, da strokovnjak v svojem mnenju upošteva tudi interese tretje osebe. Gre za tristranska razmerja s primerljivimi interesi med naročniki in tretjimi, ki temeljijo na pogodbi o izdelavi strokovnega mnenja. Takšni primeri so pogosti pri pogodbah o davčnem svetovanju. Na podlagi takšne pogodbe naročnik davčnemu svetovalcu naroči, da ob njegovih lastnih davčnih zadevah upošteva v davčni ekspertizi tudi davčne zadeve družinskih članov oziroma družbenikov, ker je treba pravna razmerja med naročnikom in tretjimi osebami oblikovati tako, da bodo davčno čim ugodnejša. Ker davčna struktura v korist ene stranke praviloma nima pomanjkljivosti za drugo stranko, kot je to običajno pri napačni cenitvi predmeta nakupa, npr. stanovanja, stanovanjske hiše ali podjetja, ne služi temu, da bi varovala pred lastnim pogodbenim partnerjem, temveč predvsem pred davčno upravo. Tretja oseba, ki je lahko družinski član, sorodnik naročnika davčne ekspertize, ali njegov družbenik, bo v teh primerih prepustila klientu strokovnega mnenja, da bo pri uveljavljanju povračila škode, upošteval tudi njene interese. Naročnik bo običajno uveljavljal pogodbeno odškodninsko odgovornost strokovnjaka, zaradi kršitve pogodbe o izdelavi davčne ekspertize. Pri tem bo uveljavljal tudi varstvo interesov tretje osebe. Podobna razmerja so podana v oporočnih primerih. Kadar oporočitelj naroči pri odvetniku sestavo oporoke ter mu izroči svoje zapiske o tem, kakšno vsebino naj bi oporoka izražala, ni izključeno, da bo odvetnik po posvetu z oporočiteljem oblikoval tudi svoje zapiske in da bo končna vsebina oporoke odstopala od prave volje oporočitelja. Ni pa tudi izključeno, da bo odvetnik v zamudi s sestavo oporoke in da bo oporočitelj preminil še preden bo oporoka napisana. Pogosto so tudi pripeti, da oporočitelj podpiše oporoko, čeprav njene vsebine ni natančno proučil. Razočarani oporočni dediči, ki ostanejo praznih rok, so v teh primerih izenačeni s tretjimi osebami, glede na to, da z odvetnikom niso vzpostavili pogodbenih razmerij, običajno pa tudi oporočitelja ni več. V vseh teh primerih se je v nemškem pravu izoblikovalo pogodbeno varstvo tretjih oseb na podlagi pogodbe o izdelavi strokovnega mnenja, npr. pogodbe o izdelavi davčne ekspertize, ali odvetniške pogodbe o sestavi oporoke. Varstvo tretjih oseb na podlagi takšnih pogodb se utemeljuje z varstvenim učinkom teh pogodb nasproti tretjim osebam. Varstvo tretjih oseb temelji na spoznanju, da pogodbene obveznosti vsebujejo poleg primarnih obveznosti, ki so usmerjene v izpolnitev pogodbe, tudi skupino pomožnih ali stranskih dolžnosti s funkcijo varstva upnika pogodbe ali tretjih oseb, ki so v določenih razmerjih z upnikom pogodbe. Bolj pogosti so primeri, kadar razmerja med naročniki strokovnih mnenj in tretjimi osebami temeljijo na njihovih nasprotujočih si interesih. Primer cenitev nepremičnin v povezavi z njihovim nakupom je bil že omenjen. Podobni primeri so pri pogodbah o reviziji ali o sestavi ali potrditvi zaključnega računa podjetij. Na strokovna mnenja na podlagi takšnih pogodb se lahko sklicujejo kupci podjetij, posojilodajalci, investitorji in delničarji. Navedene tretje osebe so v teh primerih v razmerjih z nasprotujočimi si interesi z naročniki strokovnih mnenj. Naročniki strokovnih mnenj nimajo posebnega interesa, da bi uveljavljali varstvo interesov tretjih oseb, saj je njihov ključni interes, da nepremičnino ali delnice podjetja, prodajo po čim bolj ugodni ceni. Tudi v teh primerih se je v nemškem, avstrijskem in švicarskem pravu uveljavilo pogodbeno varstvo tretjih oseb, vendar na drugačen način, kot v prej omenjenih primerih, ki temeljijo na primerljivih interesih med klienti strokovnjakov in tretjimi osebami. Kadar so interesi med temi osebami nasprotujoči, se je uveljavilo pravilo, da se lahko tretja oseba sklicuje v dobri veri na korektnost strokovnega mnenja. To pravilo se je uveljavilo tudi zato, ker so v teh primerih tretjim osebam prikrita razmerja med klienti in strokovnjaki. Ni izključeno, da je klient strokovnjaku, npr cenilcu ali arhitektu posredoval napačne podatke in je zato strokovno mnenje napačno. V teh primerih se je uveljavilo pravilo, da so strokovnjaki vedno, kadar razmerja med njihovimi klienti in tretjimi osebami temeljijo na nasprotujočih si interesih, dolžni preverjati pojasnila svojih klientov. Če to opustijo, so odškodninsko odgovorni tretjim osebam za škodo, ki jo utrpijo. V prej naštetih pravnih redih se je tudi za takšne primere uveljavilo pogodbeno varstvo tretjih oseb, čeprav z določeno specifiko. Varstvo tretjih oseb tudi v teh primerih temelji na stranskih dolžnostih varstva, ki se na podlagi osnovne pogodbe o izdelavi strokovnega mnenja razširijo na tretje osebe. Kadar gre za nasprotujoče se interese naročnikov in tretjih oseb, ob sklenitvi pogodbe o izdelavi strokovnega mnenja ni znano, katere tretje osebe se bodo na strokovno mnenje zanesle. To postane znano šele, ko je strokovno mnenje izdelano. To pa vsekakor ni že ob sklenitvi pogodbe. S tem nastanejo številna sporna vprašanja, ki so povezana s pravnim temeljem pogodbe in z interpretacijo pogodbe. Sporna so vprašanja o pravni podlagi pogodbenega varstva tretjih oseb. Nemško, avstrijsko in švicarsko pravo rešuje ta vprašanja na podlagi pravil, ki so se izoblikovala s pogodbo z varstvenim učinkom nasproti tretjim osebam. V angleškem pravu se takšno varstvo ni uveljavilo, ker temeljni instituti pogodbenega prava temu nasprotujejo. Gre za pravili o privity ter o consideration. V angleškem pravu se je uveljavilo nepogodbeno varstvo tretjih oseb na podlagi specialnega razmerja, ki se na nepogodbeni podlagi vzpostavi med strokovnjaki in tretjimi osebami. Pri tem angleška pravna teorija vztrajno zatrjuje, da je specialno razmerje med že navedenima osebama, povsem podobno pogodbenemu in bi bilo takšno razmerje tudi uveljavljeno, če ne bi to preprečevala instituta privity ter consideration. V bivšem jugoslovanskem pravu sodišča niso priznala pogodbene odškodninske odgovornosti nasproti tretjim osebam, ker so izhajala iz stališča, da pogodba ustvarja pravne učinke zgolj med strankama pogodbe. Če je bila tretja oseba z mnenjem strokovnjaka prizadeta, je lahko uveljavljala odškodnino od strokovnjaka zgolj na deliktni podlagi. Takšno mnenje zastopajo slovenska sodišča tudi v sedanjem obdobju. Pri tem se slovenska sodišča sklicujejo na specialno razmerje, ki se vzpostavi med strokovnjakom in tretjo osebo. Očitno v teh primerih razmerja med tretjimi osebami in naročniki strokovnih mnenj, temeljijo na njihovih nasprotujočih si interesih. Ker je to mogoče spoznati na podlagi pogodb o izdelavi strokovnega mnenja, se že navedena specialna razmerja vzpostavijo tudi na podlagi takšne pogodbe. Mogoče je to eden od razlogov, zaradi katerih angleški pravniki poudarjajo, da je konstrukcija specialnega razmerja podobna pogodbenim razmerjem. Omeniti je treba, da so švicarska sodišča uveljavila takšno konstrukcijo samo v predpogodbenih razmerjih, ko se uveljavlja predpogodbeno odgovornost strokovnjakov. V predpogodbenih razmerjih sodelujejo strokovnjaki s svojimi strokovnimi mnenji tako, da se v ta razmerja po pooblastilu naročnikov vključujejo kot pooblaščenci za pogajanja. Gre za pogajanja naročnikov strokovnih mnenj s tretjimi osebami. Tretje osebe lahko v teh primerih uveljavljajo predpogodbeno odgovornost strokovnjakov. Takšno varstvo tretjih oseb se je uveljavilo v nemškem, avstrijskem in švicarskem pravu. V slovenskem pravu bi se lahko uveljavilo pogodbeno varstvo tretjih oseb, glede na to, da struktura pogodbenih obveznosti z delitvijo na primarne in stranske dolžnosti to opravičuje. V bivšem jugoslovanskem pravu se je zelo razvilo učenje o pravni podlagi pogodbe in pravila o tem so sestavni del pogodbenega varstva tretjih oseb. Predpogodbeno odgovornost strokovnjakov nasproti tretjim osebam bi bilo treba v slovenskem pravu šele izoblikovati, vendar so bile določene delne rešitve o tem nakazane že v bivšem jugoslovanskem pravu.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: Pogodbena, nepogodbena, predpogodbena odškodninska odgovornost strokovnjakov nasproti tretjim osebam
• Work type: Doctoral dissertation
• Typology: 2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2022
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-142931
• COBISS.SI-ID: 132830723
• Publication date in RUL: 03.12.2022

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Lability of experts for loss against third persons

Abstract

When an expert provides information in the exercise of his profession, this type of liability is included in the professional liability of members of individual occupational groups, e.g. lawyers, architects, auditors, tax advisors, and real estate appraisers. It is characteristic of these members that they work in the liberal professions, which is why they prepare expert opinions for their clients for their clients or clients based on contracts. Given this, there is no doubt that an expert is liable to his client for damages if he produces a deficient expert opinion under the contract. The question is, however, whether an expert can be liable for damages under those contracts to third parties who are not in a contractual relationship with the experts but who have relied on these opinions. There are different solutions in comparative law. If a third party relied on an expert opinion, it is not excluded that he is in a family, kinship, or employment with the client of this opinion. In these cases, the relationship between the contracting authorities and third parties is based on comparable interests, which is why the contracting authority acts in relation to the expert as a representative of a third party and on this basis asserts the interests of third parties. These are tripartite relationships with comparable interests between contracting authorities and third parties, based on a contract for the preparation of an expert opinion. Such cases are common in tax advisory contrats. Based on such a contract, the client instructs teh tax advisor to take into account the tax matters of family members or partners in addition to his tax matters, because the legal relationship between the client and third parties must be designed to be as tax-friendly as possible. Because the tax structure in favor of one party generally has no shortcomings for the other party, as usually the cases with a miscalculation of the object of purchase, e.g. housing, residential houses, or business, does not serve to protect against one´s contractual partner, but against the tax administration. In these cases, the third party, who may be a family partner, a relative of the client of the tax expertise, or his partner, will leave the expert opinion to the client to take into account his interests when claming damages. The client will usually claim the contractual liability of the expert due to breach for the preparation of tax expertise. In doing so, it will also assert the protection of the interests of third parties. Similar relationships are given in testamentary cases. When the testator orders the composition of the testament from the lawyer and hands him notes on the testament, it is possible that the lawyer will draw up his notes after consulting with the testator and that the final content of the testament will deviate from the testator´s testament. However, it is possible that the lawyer will be late in compilling the testament and that the testator will pass away before the will is written. It is also often said that the testator signs the will, even though he has not studied its contensts carefully. Disappointed heirs who are left empty-handed are equated with third parties in these cases, given that they have not established a contractual relationship with the lawyer, and usually the testator is no longer alive. In all these cases, the contractual protection of third parties based on a contract for the preparation of a professional exchange was formed in German law, e.g. contracts on the preparation of tax expertise, or lawyers´ contracts on the composition of the will. The protection of third parties under such contracts shall be justified by the protective of those contracts vis-á-vis third parties. Protection of third parties is based on the recognition that contractual obligations contain, in addition to primary obligations aimed at fulfilling the contract, also a group of auxiliary or secondary duties with the function of protecting the creditor of the contract or third parties in certain relations with the creditor. More common are cases where the relationship between the contracting authorities and third parties is based on their conflicting interests. An example of real estate appraisal in connection with their purchase has already been mentioned. Similar cases apply to audit contracts or the composition or certification of the accounts of companies. Expert opinions based on such contracts may be relied on by corporate buyers, lenders, investors, and shareholders. In these cases, those third parties are in a relationship with conflicting interests with the contracting authorities. Clients of expert opinions have no particular interest in asserting the protection of the interests of third parties, as their key interest is to sell the company´s real estate or shares at the best possible price. In these cases, too, contractual protection of third parties was enforced in German, Austrian and Swiss law, but differently than in the aforemntioned cases based on comparable interests between professional clients and third parties. Where the interests of those persons are conflicting, the rule that a third party may rely in good faith on the correctness of the expert opinion has become established. This rule has also come into force because in these cases, the relationship between clients and professionals is hidden from third parties. It is not excluded that the client is an expert, e.g. provided incorect information to the appraiser or architect and the expert opinion is therefore incorrect. In these cases, the rule has become established that professionals are always obliged to check the explanations of their clients when the relationship between their clients and third parties is based on conflicting interests. If the waive this, they are liable to third parties for the damage they suffer. In the aforementioned legal orders, contractual protection of third parties has also been established for such cases, albeit with certain specifics. The protection of third parties in these cases is also based on the secondary duties of protection, which are extended to third parties based on the basic contract on the preparation of an expert opinion. In the case of conflicting interests of contracting authorities and third parties, it is not known at the time of concluding the expert opinion contract which third parties will rely on the expert opinion. This becomes known only when an expert opinion is produced. This is certainly not the case when concluding a contract. This raises several contentious issues related to the legal basis of the contract and the interpretation of the contract. Questions about the legal basis of contractual protection of third parties are controversial. German, Austrian and Swiss law adresses these issues based on rules established by a contract with a protective effect vis-á-vis third parties. Such protection has not been established in English law because the fundamental institutes of contract law oppose it. These are the rules of privity and consideration. Non-contractual protection of third parties based on a special relatinship established on a non-contractual basis between professionals and third parties has become established in English law. In doing so, English legal theory insists that special relationship between the two persons already mentioned is quite similar to a contractual one, and such a relationship would be enforced if the institute of privity and consideration had not prevented it. In the former Yugoslav law, the courts did not recognize contractual liability towards third parties because they proceeded from the view that the contract creates legal effects only between the parties to the contract. If a third party was affected by the expert´s opinion, he could claim compensation from the expert solely on tort. Such an opinion is also represented by Slovenian courts in the currant period. In doing so, Slovenian courts refer to a special relationship established between an expert and a third party. Clearly, in these cases, the relationship between third parties and the contracting authorities is based on their conflicting interests. As this can be recognized based on cnotracts for the preparation of an expert opinion, the already mentioned special relationship are established based on such a contract. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why English lawyers point out that the contractual of a special relationship is similar to a contractual relationship. It should be noted that Swiss courts have invoked such construction only in pre-contractual relationship when the pre-contractual liability of expert is invoked. Experts participate in pre-contractual relations with their expert opinion by joining these relation as negotiating agents. These are negotiations between contracting authorities and third parties. Third parties may exercise the pre-contractual liability of experts in these cases. Such protection of third parties has been established under German, Austrian, and Swiss law. Contractual protection of third parties could be enforced in Slovenian law, given that the structure of contractual obligations justifies this by dividing it into primary and secondary duties. In the former Yugoslav law, the doctrine of the legal basis of the contract has developed greatly, and the rules on this are an integral part of the contractual protection of third parties. The pre-contractual liability of experts´ vis-á-vis third parties has yet to be established in Slovenian law, but certain partial solutions to this have already been indicated in the former Yugoslav law.

• Keywords: Contractual, non-contractual, pre-contractual liability of experts against third parties