CONTRACTUAL-LEGAL NATURE OF MANUFACTURED OUTSOURCING

Problems of modernization of economic legislation

Abstract

The article is devoted to substantiation of the expediency of distinguishing the contract of industrial outsourcing into a separate type of economic agreements. In this regard, the article analyzes similar and distinctive features of a contract of industrial outsourcing from supply contracts, a simple partnership and a commercial concession. The main differences in manufactured outsourcing from a simple partnership agreement are: a combination of parties to a common purpose under a contract of a simple partnership, under an outsourcing contract — in essence, the customer has the goal of optimizing costs and increasing competitiveness, while the outsourcer - to obtain orders and access to the latest developments, at the expense of which the expanded production function and subsequently produce their own final product; receiving benefits: under a contract of a simple partnership — as a result of joint activity, under the contract of outsourcing — obtaining benefits from each other (the customer — the product produced, the outsourcer — payment for execution). The main differences in the manufactured outsourcing from the supply contract are: the goals for the achievement of which the parties enter into the relevant legal relationship; requirements to standards for which production should take place; the content of what is transmitted under the contract; duration of relations; the contract of manufactured outsourcing involves the transfer of the process, which may be the main (in the case of strategic outsourcing), without proper execution of it the meaning of the economic activity is lost; the supply contract is provided only by the execution of certain processes of the customer’s economic activity; relative ease of substitution of the counteragent in the legal relationship. The main differences in manufactured outsourcing from a commercial concession contract are: the existence of the transfer of rights to use the trademark under a franchise contract, as well as receipt of payments for the use of the trademark, the purpose and result. The regulation of relations arising on the basis of a contract of manufactured outsourcing, with the conclusion of the general contract and additional agreements to it is offered.

REFERENCES

1. Ioffe O.S. Objazatel’stvennoe pravo. Moсkow: Jurid. lit., 1975. 880 p. [in Russian].


2. Braginskij M.I., Vitrjanskij V.V. Dogovornoe pravo. Kniga pervaja: Obshhie polozhenija. Izd. 2-e, ispr. Mosсow: Statut, 1999. 848 p. [in Russian].


3. Gordon M.V. Sistema dogovorov v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave. Uchenye zapiski. Har’kovskij juridicheskij insti tut im. L.M. Kaganovicha. Kafedra grazhdanskogo prava i processa. 1954. Iss. 5. P. 65-87 [in Russian].


4. Luts V.V. Kodyfikatsiia dohovirnoho prava (za proektom novoho Tsyvilnoho kodeksu Ukrainy). Ukrainske pravo. 1997. Chyslo 1. Reforma tsyvilnoho prava v Ukraini. P. 75-92 [in Ukrainian].


5. Milash V.S. Komertsiinyi dohovir u konteksti suchasnykh rynkovykh umov. Kharkiv: Vydavets FO-P Vapniarchuk N.M., 2007. 440 p. [in Ukrainian].


6. Braginskij M.I., Vitrjanskij V.V. Dogovornoe pravo. Kniga vtoraja: Dogovory o peredache imushhestva. Mosсow: Statut, 2000. 800 p. [in Russian].


7. Kylymnyk I.I. Osoblyvosti pravovoho rehuliuvannia dohovoru komertsiinoi kontsesii (franchaizynhu): avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.03. Natsionalna yurydychna akademiia Ukrainy imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. Kharkiv, 2003. 25 p. [in Ukrainian].


8. Hladka O.V. Komertsiўna kontsesiia yak forma innovatsiўnoho investuvannia: avtoref. dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.04. Natsionalnў yurydychnyў universytet imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. Kharkiv, 2015. 21 p. [in Ukrainian].


9. Kuzmin O.Ie., Myronchuk T.V., Salata I.Z., Marchuk L.V. Franchaizynh: navch. posibnyk. Za red. O.Ie. Kuzmina. Kyiv, 2011. 267 p. [in Ukrainian].


10. Kariakina O.Iu. Franchaizynh yak odna z form dohovirnoi peredachi prav intelektualnoi vlasnosti: ekonomikopravovi aspekty. Pravnychyi visnyk Universytetu "KROK". 2011. Vyp. 9. P. 26-31. [in Ukrainian].


11. Perchuk O. Osoblyvosti obliku operatsii franchaizynh u pidpryiemstva-franchaizi. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats "Eko nomichnyi visnyk universytetu". 2010. № 14. S. 144-152. URL: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/soc_gum/Evu/2010_14/ Perchuk.pdf [in Ukrainian].


12. Kas’janova G.Ju. Sovmestnaja dejatel’nost’: pravovoe regulirovanie, buhgalterskij i nalogovyj uchet. M.: Informcentr XXI veka, 2004. 320 p. [in Russian].


13. Kosach N.E. Pravovoe regulirovanie sovmestnoj hozjajstvennoj dejatel’nosti. Doneck: Jugo-Vostok, Ltd, 2003. 132 p. [in Russian].


14. Oliukha V.H. Hospodarsko-pravove zabezpechennia informatsiinoi bezpeky v autsorsynhovykh vidnosynakh. Ekonomika ta pravo. 2018. No. 2 (50). P. 50-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/econlaw.2018.02.050 [in Ukrainian].