THE PARTIES OF THE CONTRACT FOR CONDUCTING SEARCH WORKS AND FEATURES OF THEIR INTERACTION

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of features of interaction of the parties of the contract for carrying out search works. A distinction has been made between the terms “party to the contract” and “party to the obligation”. It is concluded that the parties to the contract for exploration work do not always become the subject of the contractual obligation. Yes, under the contract under study, the parties are endowed with rights and responsibilities, but the rights and obligations can be endowed not only by the customer and the contractor, but also by other participants (for example, subcontractor, architect, design engineer, etc.). The obligation involves persons with rights and / or obligations – the customer and the contractor, regardless of whether they are parties or parties to the contract. Accordingly, the parties to the contract for exploration are not always identical to the parties to the obligation, because the defining feature of the contracting party is the expression of the person’s will in the contract, and the defining feature of the obligated party is the person’s rights and / or obligations. Legal entities as parties to the contract for exploration work act in accordance with the established purpose of their activities. However, in some cases, legal entities have specific civil rights and obligations under the contract to conduct exploration work, the possibility of performing such work directly depends on the presence of a special permit for certain types of exploration work. Separately within the article the common terminological errors at the name of the contractor as the party of the contract for carrying out search works (the searcher, the designer, the executor) are analyzed. It is proved that the parties can call themselves a designer, a researcher and a contractor, which is not only not prohibited by current legislation, but also allowed by it. At the same time, amending the Civil Codе by renaming the permanent name “contractor” is inappropriate, as the procedure for amending it seems inexpedient and does not significantly affect the improvement of the rights of the parties to the contract to conduct exploration work.