NAGODBA (PORAVNANJE) KAO POSEBNI INSTITUT UGOVORNOG PRAVA

For a long time the settlement was considered a “separate” institute of contract law in Croatian and comparative legal theory. Some authors considered it as a special contract (agree- ment), while others considered it just a change in the content of the existing contract. In addition, the institute of settlement was viewed as a strictly separate institute of contract law (settlement agreement, out-of-court settlement) and procedural law (court settlement). The subject of the paper is a presentation of classic legislative and doctrinal solutions to settlement agreements in civil and commercial law, an analysis of the institute of settlement in contract law through its essential characteristics and fundamental elements (dispute, un- certainty, mutual concession) and a comparison of the institute of settlement in contractual law and procedural law. The paper aims to subject to criticism and possibly revise three special paradigms related to the institute of settlement in contract law: 1. there are significant differences between out- of-court and court settlements that make them completely separate institutes, 2. the purpose of the settlement agreement should be the established principle of “taking at least a bit...” as opposed to the correct principle of “taking a little less but getting it immediately”, and 3. the settlement agreement is not merely a response given by natural and legal persons to the slow and inefficient courts, but quite the opposite – it assumes at least an average judicial efficiency indicating the response of the courts to certain legal issues. The results of the paper are answers to the theoretical and practical questions posed in this way, as well as a synthesis of solutions on the institute of settlement arrived at through the analysis of the Croatian and comparative law. In conclusion, the settlement institute can largely contribute to a faster and better general business operation.