And what about the deposit?

The Supreme Court, in its judgement of 7 October 1999 (I CKN 262/98) examined the problem of settling a reciprocal contract and also dealt with the issue of deposits in this context. The thesis presented by the Court was very categorical: the amount handed to the contracting party after the conclusion of an agreement cannot be deemed to be the amount paid on account of a deposit. A number of serious legal and actual consequences arises from this lapidary statement and not all of them have been thoroughly analysed by the Supreme Court. The method chosen of treating the deposit and its legal character considerably affects the content of concluded agreements, particularly those concerning the transfer of either property titles or perpetual usufruct to real estate. A strong guarantee In order to understand it fully, we have to look closely at the institution of the deposit as such, as well as the economic functions served by it. Article 394 of the Civil Code contains the