The practical significanceof the definition of the element of combined contracts

The article considers practical aspects of applying the definition of the element to regulation of combined contracts and contracts which are not combined but can be fallaciously qualified as such. It is determined fallacious to qualify a named contract as a combined contract when it is complicated by rights and obligations, which are provided for another named contract but are not essential for it. It is concluded that the typical qualifying mistake is to consider as a combined contract the document which involves two or more agreements as legal relationships. In the case of the contract determining rights and obligations in regard to civil defense facilities it is shown how the identification of the element through the essential rights and obligations for any named contract helps to solve the problems of using combined contracts. It is proposed to refrain from absolutization of the concept of essential contract`s performance when distinguishing between unnamed contracts and combined contracts in so far as agreement combining the elements of various named contracts sometimes can be qualified as unnamed contract. It is found that in addition to a composition of basic elements of contract it is necessary to take into account the constancy of the composition from one contract to another, which becomes an indicator of the unique legal purpose of such contracts. It is concluded that the example of the combined contract with the unique legal purpose is a distribution agreement that has gone from contract with random set of elements to unnamed contract characterized by a stable combination of elements and the legal purpose that is unique to this contract.