THREATS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF A GOVERNMENT LEVEL ON THE BASIS OF AN UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT OF THE MEDICAL EXPERIMENT. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Abstract

The content of the contract between Pfizer and Brazil has been disclosed. Information from the Pfizer employee shows that such agreements have signed all countries in the number 110, including Poland. The content of the contract after initial analysis indicates that it is invalid under the law. Nevertheless, on its basis, numerous actions of the society were made in the form of so-called lock-dawn and in many placement sites undergoing a gene experiment under threatening employment loss, as well as numerous restrictions have been introduced, depriving the society of elementary public-primary rights. After disclosing the content of the contract, a social debate was launched in terms of its annulment. Given that the discussion revolves around the issue, the validity of the contract and binding the Party to the Agreement, taking into account the importance of distinguishing the terms “validity of the contract” and “the possibility of the contract”, it is necessary to remind the seemingly obvious thing. The concept of “contracts” used by lawyers in three meanings: First of all, a legal activity, the substrate of which is a compatible statement for will of its parties, secondly, obligatory legal relationship (Article 353 K.C.) binding the parties due to the conclusion of a valid agreement (legal action). Thirdly, more commonly a contract may be a document in which the statements of the parties are constituents of the contract in the first sense. For which it is usually due to the context, however, as you can see, misunderstandings are possible. This contract (legal action) is important, depends on whether its content and form correspond to the requirements established by the national civil law system. If these requirements are met, the right effect is made in the form of binding to the legal relationship consisting in the fact that one of the parties may demand from the opposite preservation, consistent with contractual standards, reconstructed on the attitude made by the WLA benefits. This effect does not follow, as rules governing nature, but from civil law standards and therefore there is no such thing as the applicable de facto agreement. In contrasting the terms of “duration of the contract” or “the possibility of the contract” and the concept of “validity of the contract” – as mine polemiści do – therefore, the goal is. The validity of the contract (legal relationship) is a legal effect to an important agreement (legal actions), and if the contract can not bind, most often because it is invalid (legal action does not meet the requirements from which it depends on it). The result of recognition of a contractual provision for abusive may be that the content of the contract does not meet the statutory validity requirements, and therefore, to be a result, the legal relationship did not arise, and thus – does not bind. The concepts of validity and the possibility of the contract are not opposite, but they are complemented as a cause and effect. The concept of the DE FACTO agreement – which MEC. Sampława opposing the agreement of De Jure – there is no reason to justify the commitment never results from the fact that there is no law standard, which with a specific fact binds effect in the form of a commitment. The contract is therefore only applicable to De Jure – because such an effect assigns a valid legal right. If the contract is invalid, no obligation arises, a possible claim for the fulfillment of the benefit does not use legal protection, on the contrary of the parties who have received the invalid agreement, should remain with the request of his reimbursement. Actual performance of the activities described in an invalid agreement does not mean the DE FACTO agreement.