Lew – in cooperation with three other animals – he hunted a deer. However, in the division of the spoils he uses so convincingly strong arguments that he de facto prevents the consumption of his partners. We are talking about the story of Ignacy Krasicki "Lew, Goat, Sheep and Cow".
Full of sympathy for our master of irony, we must remind you that the idea came from Esop, who mocked this aspect of human greed already in the sixth century before our Common Era! Similarly, Roman jurisdictions did not accept the lion's company (societas leonina), in which a partner not separated from losses, is unprofitable.
Such a provision in the contract of a partnership in the Polish legal state must be declared invalid due to the breach of the nature of the company and the principles of social coexistence (Article 58 ed. Article 2 k.s.h.).
Other contractual arrangements could remain binding if it follows from the circumstances that partners would choose to include it in such a modified version. Eventually, any partner would be entitled to a claim for profit.
If a person remains relentless in his plans and tries to outsmart the system, it should be warned that the solution is not to provide a symbolic profit, as this may be treated by the court as an act aimed at circumventing the law and would lead to identical effects as above.
The object of the dispute is the so-called zero option – it is about excluding the partner from both profits and losses. Part of the doctrine allows such a provision, based on the principle of volenti non fit iniuria and indicating that this does not involve exploitation as in the case of a lion company. second However, the position rejects this construction as contrary to the nature of the company.
In this respect, the opposite configuration to societas leonina – the exclusion from losses of a shareholder participating in the profit – seems to be the most sure in jurisdiction. Although this possibility derives directly from k.s.h., according to the Supreme Court it is necessary to approach it with some reflection and to take into account the interests of individuals third.
To return to our discriminated accomplices, it must be stated that, under the current legal condition, they would not be able to profit from the trial because... as animals, they have no judicial capacity.