Lease and Good Faith: Reflections on Ordinance No. 11219 of 2024

The recent ordinance of the Court of Cassation No. 11219 of April 26, 2024, provides important reflections on the topic of leasing properties for purposes other than residential use. In a context where contractual relationships must adhere to principles of fairness and good faith, the ruling addresses the inertia of the landlord and the legitimacy of their request for payment of overdue rents.

The Context of the Ruling

The case concerned a dispute between F. and S. in which the landlord had exhibited a behavior of inertia in exercising their credit rights for an extended period. The Court of Cassation established that this behavior does not automatically imply a waiver of the right to request full payment of the accrued rents.

In general. Regarding the leasing of urban properties for purposes other than residential use, the conduct of the landlord who, after being inert in executing the tenant - even if due to a fault attributable to them and for a time that reasonably leads the debtor to believe that the right will no longer be exercised - requests full payment of the accrued rents is not sufficient to constitute a conclusive behavior from which to unequivocally infer the tacit intention to waive the right, nor does it represent a case of abuse of right, because the mere delay of one party in exercising their prerogatives can give rise to a violation of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract only if, not responding to any interest of its holder, it translates into a damage to the counterpart.

The Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has several practical implications:

  • Recognition of the landlord's legitimacy to request overdue rents even after a period of inactivity.
  • Affirming that inertia does not in itself constitute a waiver of rights by the landlord.
  • Evaluating the principle of good faith in relation to the interests of both parties.

The Court, also referring to the provisions of the Civil Code, clarifies that abuse of right cannot be configured simply based on a delay in requesting performance. In other words, the landlord must demonstrate that their behavior did not cause harm to the tenant and that they maintained a legitimate interest in enforcing the debt.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 11219 of 2024 invites us to reflect on the importance of good faith in lease contracts. Legal practitioners and landlords must be aware that inertia has consequences and that a late payment request must be justified. In light of this, it is essential to maintain an open dialogue between the parties and respect each other's rights, to avoid future disputes and ensure the stability of contractual relationships.

Bianucci Law Firm