Commentary on Judgment No. 15695 of 2024: The Conventional Purpose Loan

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 15695 of June 5, 2024, offers an important opportunity for reflection on the topic of the conventional purpose loan. This type of contract, which deviates from the general rules set forth in the Civil Code, requires particular attention during the drafting and stipulation phases. In particular, the ruling clarifies that the purpose loan is valid only if the borrower assumes a specific obligation towards the lender, linked to the latter's interest in the use of the funds.

The Conventional Purpose Loan: Definition and Requirements

According to Article 1813 of the Civil Code, a loan is a contract whereby one party delivers a sum of money to another, with the obligation to return it. However, in the case of the conventional purpose loan, the situation becomes more complex. Judgment No. 15695 establishes that it is necessary for the contract to contain a specific clause that commits the borrower to use the funds for a specific purpose, identified by the lender's interest.

  • Specific obligation of the borrower
  • Lender's interest in the destination of the funds
  • Insufficiency of mere indication of reasons

This aspect is crucial: the simple indication of the reason for which the financing is granted is not sufficient to ensure the validity of the contract. Only when there is a specific obligation does the clause regarding the destination of the borrowed sum affect the cause of the contract, making contractual nullity possible in the event of failure to realize the agreed-upon program.

Conventional purpose loan - Content - Interest of the lender alone in realizing the destination program of the sum - Insufficiency - Lender's interest in the realization of the program - Necessity. The conventional purpose loan, which represents a deviation from the contractual type of Article 1813 of the Civil Code, can only be defined as such when it contains a clause whereby the borrower has assumed a specific obligation towards the lender, due to the latter's – direct or indirect – interest in a specific manner of using the funds for a determined purpose, with the mere indication of the reasons for which the financing is granted proving insufficient for this purpose; consequently, only in the first case does the clause regarding the destination of the borrowed sum affect the cause of the contract, and its non-fulfillment may lead to contractual nullity.

Practical Implications for the Parties Involved

The implications of the ruling are significant for both lenders and borrowers. It is essential that the involved parties understand the necessity of drafting clear and detailed contracts, in which the specific obligation of the borrower is explicitly stated. The lack of such specificity could lead to disputes and, ultimately, to the nullity of the contract.

Furthermore, the ruling draws attention to the need to protect the interests of both parties, emphasizing how a well-structured contract can prevent future legal disputes and ensure compliance with the commitments made.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 15695 of 2024 represents an important reference point in the regulation of conventional purpose loans. It highlights the need for greater attention in the drafting of loan contracts, emphasizing the importance of specifying the obligations and interests of the parties. For legal professionals, this constitutes an invitation to provide targeted assistance and advice, ensuring that loan contracts effectively meet the needs of all parties involved.

Bianucci Law Firm