Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php on line 25

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php:25) in /home/stud330394/public_html/template/header.php on line 59
Коментар до Рішення № 18831 2024 року: Обіцянка платежу та тягар доведення. | Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі

Commentary on Judgment No. 18831 of 2024: Promise to Pay and Burden of Proof

Judgment No. 18831 of July 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers interesting food for thought regarding the regulation of non-transferable cheques and promises to pay. In particular, the decision clarifies the drawer's responsibilities concerning the burden of proof when dealing with circumstances that could alter the effectiveness of a payment commitment.

Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the Court had to assess the existence of a promise to pay by Z. to P. through the issuance of a non-transferable cheque. The main issue was whether the issuance of such a cheque should be considered a valid promise to pay, or if there were elements that justified a purpose other than a simple payment commitment.

Non-transferable cheque with amount and beneficiary indication - Promise to pay - Existence - Burden of proof - Purpose other than payment commitment or circulation against one's will - On the drawer. A non-transferable cheque filled out by the issuer with the amount and the beneficiary's name constitutes a promise to pay by the former to the latter, with the consequence that the burden of proof of a purpose, related to the insertion of the beneficiary's name, other than the commitment to pay the amount indicated on the instrument to them, or that subsequent circulation occurred against their will, lies with the drawer.

Burden of Proof and Legal Implications

The judgment clearly establishes that it is the drawer's burden to prove that the insertion of the beneficiary's name on the cheque had a purpose other than a mere promise to pay. This position is based on an interpretation of the Civil Code provisions, particularly Articles 1988 and 2697, which deal respectively with the promise to pay and the burden of proof. Therefore, the drawer must prove that the intention was different, otherwise the promise to pay remains valid and binding.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, judgment No. 18831 of 2024 represents an important precedent for Italian case law, especially in matters of non-transferable cheques and promises to pay. Companies and legal professionals must pay particular attention to these aspects, as proper management of documentation and clear explanation of intentions can prevent future disputes. The non-transferable cheque, if used correctly, can prove to be a useful tool, but it is essential to understand the responsibilities that derive from it.

Адвокатське бюро Б'януччі