Bank Contracts and Written Form: Commentary on Ordinance No. 18230 of 2024

Recently, the Court of Cassation issued Ordinance No. 18230 on July 3, 2024, providing an important clarification regarding bank contracts and the requirement of written form. This ruling is set within a complex legal context, where the formal requirement plays a crucial role in ensuring the validity of contracts, but with some significant clarifications.

The Legal Context

The ruling in question refers to what is established by Articles 117 of Legislative Decree No. 385 of 1983 and 23 of Legislative Decree No. 58 of 1998, which require written form for the validity of certain bank contracts. However, the Court clarified that this requirement refers exclusively to the external appearance of the contract and the expressive manner of the agreement, without extending to the delivery of the contractual document itself.

Bank contracts - Formal requirement - Extension to the delivery of the contractual document - Exclusion - Reasons. In the context of bank contracts, the requirement of written form, as provided for by Article 117 of Legislative Decree No. 385 of 1983 and Article 23 of Legislative Decree No. 58 of 1998, pertains to the external appearance of the contract and the expressive manner of the agreement, not extending to the delivery of the contractual document concluded in such form, which, if omitted, does not produce any contractual nullity.

Implications of the Ruling

This decision has important implications for parties involved in bank contracts. In particular, the ruling clarifies that the lack of delivery of the contractual document, while being a recommended practice, does not affect the validity of the contract itself. This means that a contract can be considered valid even if the document has not been physically delivered to the contracting party.

  • Acknowledgment of the validity of the contract even without delivery.
  • Clarity on the formal nature of the written form requirement.
  • Possibility to interpret bank contracts more flexibly.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 18230 of 2024 represents a significant step in clarifying the dynamics of bank contracts, emphasizing the importance of the written form as a validity requirement without extending this necessity to the delivery of the document. This approach, while safeguarding the rights of the parties, also offers greater flexibility and simplification in contractual relationships, which can often be complex and burdensome. Institutions and legal professionals should consider these indications for proper management of bank contracts.

Bianucci Law Firm