?
Совпадение кредитора и должника: корреляция между конфузией, прекращением обязательства и удовлетворением кредиторского интереса (окончание)
The prevailing view in the doctrine considers the merger of the creditor and debtor as a cause of extinguishment of obligations, raising the question of its impact on the creditor’s interest. However, legal scholars who follow this view have failed to provide a comprehensive answer to it, despite their numerous attempts over many years. In this regard, the author revises the prevailing dogma and demonstrates its inconsistency, proving that confusion is not a sufficient reason for extinguishment of the obligation and that its immediate effect is confined to the transformation of the obligation into a natural one due to the temporary loss of its suability. For this purpose, in the second part of the article, the author examines the meaning, justification, and consequences of the concept that negates the terminating effect of confusion, and distinguishes between cases when and how a merged obligation nevertheless extinguishes. As a result, it is concluded thatimmediately after the confusion, the obligation may be terminated by means of fictitious payment, self-compensation by virtue of law, and supervening impossibility of performance. When there are no sufficient grounds for them, the obligation remains, which allows it to be extinguished by any other available means (including an actual payment by the creditor-debtor to themself), sometimes leading to the satisfaction of the creditor's interest.