The article critically assesses the current trends in the development of court jurisprudence on the issue of good faith in the context of acquisitive prescription. The author questions the validity of the concept of seemingly lawful actions proposed by the courts as a standard of good faith. It is also argued that in disputes with public owners the importance of good faith as a prerequisite for the acquisition of the right of ownership has been reduced. Particular attention is paid to the problem of acquisitive prescription of things obtained from an unauthorised alienator. An important place is occupied by a discussion on the relationship between the institutions of ordinary and extended extraordinary limitation which does not require good faith. The internal inconsistency of the formulations used by the highest courts and the theoretical imperfection of the legal reasoning they build.