Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 3235/1998 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding procedural error in debt collection notice sent to minor.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 3235/1998
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the validity of a debt collection notice sent to a minor. The notice was delivered on October 14, 1992, when the recipient was 17 years old, granting six days to object before turning 18. The court ruled that no procedural error occurred because the recipient had the full capacity to act upon the notice once they reached majority age.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act; The delivery of a debt collection notice to a minor does not constitute a procedural error if the recipient attains majority age before the objection period expires.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
debt collection notice minor capacity procedural error objection period majority age civil procedure Supreme Court verspätete Gebührenzahlung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Section 10 of the Debt Collection Act
KI-generiert
kko-precedent_1993_122
Supreme Court restored limitation period for objection due to court's erroneous phone response and timely re-submission.
admin_1993_water-superior__83
Administrative court dismissed appeal by extending limitation period due to delayed notification of water authority decision.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
kko-precedent_1996_123
Supreme Court allows time bar extension for breach of contract claim due to arbitrator bias evidence discovered late.
kko-precedent_1998_50
Supreme Court restores time limit for debt arrangement objection when client's lawyer missed notification due to client's illness.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Maksamismääräyksen antamista tarkoittavaa hakemusta koskeva ilmoitus oli annettu A:lle tiedoksi 14.10.1992, jolloin A oli ollut vielä 17-vuotias. Ilmoituksen mukaan velallisella oli ollut kuusi päivää aikaa vastustaa maksamismääräyksen antamista. A oli tullut täysiikäiseksi 17.10.1992. Kysymys siitä, oliko maksamismääräystä annettaessa tapahtunut oikeudenkäyntivirhe.