Abstrakt
The study deals with the problem of qualifying the performance of a concert by a member of an orchestra as the subject of a contract for work. While in the practice the parties choose this type of named contract, in the latest Supreme Court?s judicatory the contract is classified as a service contract referred to in the article 750 of the Civil Code. The study aims to show that the contract in question should be classified as a contract for work. The discussion is closely related to the controversial issue of the possibility of recognizing the unintelligible, immaterial outcome of work as the subject of a contract for work. The study analyzes the characteristics of the performance in the contract for the performance of a concert and compares them with the catalogue commonly found in the literature of features necessary for the subject of the contract for work. In order to achieve the aim of the study, an analysis was also made concerning the suitability of the statutory provisions of the contract for work to regulate the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract in question. The study also touches the problematic issue of the division of commitments into results obligations and diligent activity, which is widely regarded as a useful instrument in separating the work contract from the service contracts referred to in the article 750 of the Civil Code. The conclusion of the study is that the contract in question should be qualified as a contract for work, and therefore the Supreme Court ruling should be regarded as inaccurate.