I PKN 541/98
AI generated
Labor contract intent of one party insufficient to override agreed terms regarding pension severance pay.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal against the appellate court's decision to award pension severance pay to the employee. The court found that the appellate court incorrectly relied solely on the employer's unilateral intent rather than the mutual agreement of both parties to determine the contract's content. Consequently, the case was remanded to the appellate court for a new decision on the costs of the cassation proceedings.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 65 § 2 KC; Art. 382 KPC; Art. 233 § 1 KPC; Art. 393 § 1 KPC: The intent of only one party to a labor contract cannot serve as the basis for determining the disputed terms of the agreement; the court must establish the mutual intent of both parties.
Keywords
AI generated
labor contract formation
mutual intent requirement
pension severance pay
unilateral intent invalidity
appellate court error
cassation proceedings
contract interpretation
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 65 § 2 KC
Art. 382 KPC
Art. 233 § 1 KPC
Art. 393 § 1 KPC