Analysis of Judgment No. 18587 of 2024: Exception of Non-Performance and Termination of Contract

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, No. 18587 of 2024, focused on a crucial theme in contract law: the relationship between the exception of non-performance and the termination of the contract for non-performance. In this article, we will analyze the main points of the ruling and the implications for legal professionals and citizens.

The Context of the Ruling

In the case at hand, the appellant, M. (MARCHIONNI FABRIZIO), contested the decision of the Bolzano Court regarding a contractual non-performance. The Court confirmed the correctness of the exception of non-performance raised by the bankruptcy trustee, highlighting that the severity of the non-performance is not a necessary requirement for the exception, unlike what is required for the termination of the contract.

The Court's Maxim

NON-PERFORMANCE EXCEPTION ex art. 1460 c.c. – Same conditions required for termination for non-performance - Exclusion - Foundation. The exception of non-performance is not dependent on the presence of the same conditions required for termination, as the severity of the non-performance is a requirement specifically provided by law for termination and is based on the radical definitiveness of that remedy, while the exception of non-performance does not extinguish the contract, although the creditor can invoke the exception even in cases of minor non-performance. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the challenged provision, which correctly deemed the exception of non-performance raised by the bankruptcy trustee in the opposition to the passive status in which the non-admission of a professional's credit was contested, who had performed services related to a debt restructuring plan declared inadmissible and followed by bankruptcy.)

This maxim clarifies that the exception of non-performance, provided for by Article 1460 of the Civil Code, can be raised even in the presence of non-serious non-performance. This aspect appears fundamental, as it offers protection to the creditor, allowing them to oppose the fulfillment of an obligation even in cases of minor inaccuracies or omissions.

Legal Implications

The ruling in question highlights some important legal implications:

  • Regulatory Clarity: The distinction between the exception of non-performance and termination of the contract avoids confusion and provides greater certainty to the parties involved in contractual relationships.
  • Protection of the Creditor: The recognition of the exception of non-performance as a defense tool allows the creditor to protect themselves more effectively.
  • Relevance of Severity: It is crucial to understand that while the severity of non-performance is fundamental for termination, it is not for the exception of non-performance.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 18587 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding of contractual dynamics and the protections offered by our legal system. Legal professionals and citizens must pay attention to these distinctions, as they can significantly influence legal strategies and decisions in contractual relationships. Clarity and legal certainty are fundamental for a legal system that aspires to be fair and effective.

Bianucci Law Firm