Proof in sales contracts: commentary on judgment Cass. civ., no. 3373/2010

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 3373 of 2010 offers an important reflection on the burden of proof in contractual liability, particularly in the context of sales of goods. On this occasion, the Court dealt with the case of a buyer, C. M., who complained of damages following a supply of diesel fuel contaminated with water, and established principles of fundamental importance for the parties involved.

Context of the judgment

The case originated from a contractual liability action brought by C. M. against Petrolifera Teverina. The court of Viterbo had rejected the plaintiff's appeal, holding that he had not provided the necessary proof to demonstrate that the diesel fuel was actually mixed with water. The Court of Cassation, examining the appeal, clarified several crucial aspects.

Burden of proof and contractual liability

The Court first reiterated that, in the context of contractual liability, the burden of proof lies with the debtor in case of dispute of performance. In this specific case, C. M. only had to prove that he had purchased the diesel fuel from the defendant and that such product had been used in his vehicles. The burden of proving that the diesel fuel was free from defects, on the other hand, fell to Petrolifera Teverina.

The judgment clarifies that the plaintiff must only prove the existence of the contract and the performance of their obligation, while it is up to the defendant to prove the conformity of the goods sold.

Presumptions and evaluation of evidence

Another interesting aspect of the judgment concerns the evaluation of presumptions. The Court highlighted that, based on testimonies, other customers of the defendant had not suffered damages from diesel fuel supplies. This element was used by the judge to exclude Petrolifera Teverina's liability, despite the plaintiff having provided clues and documentation to support his thesis. This highlights a crucial point: presumptions can carry significant weight in a judgment, but they must be carefully evaluated.

• The appellant must prove the purchase of the goods.
• The defendant must prove the quality of the goods sold.
• Testimonies can influence the judge's evaluation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 3373/2010 of the Court of Cassation represents an important guide for understanding the rights and duties of the parties in a sales contract. It clarifies that the burden of proof should not fall excessively on the buyer, especially in cases of disputes regarding defects in the goods. This principle is fundamental to ensuring fair and balanced justice, especially in commercial contexts where parties may find themselves in unequal positions. The correct evaluation of evidence and presumptions is essential for a just and reasoned legal decision.