Analysis of Judgment No. 16979 of 2024: Obligation and Compensation in Civil Law

The recent judgment No. 16979 of June 20, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications on the distinction between the claim for damages for breach of the obligation to act and the claim for compensation under Art. 1381 of the Civil Code. This decision has generated interest due to its relevance in the field of obligations and contracts, emphasizing the need for a proper formulation of claims in court.

The Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, the appellant initially filed a claim for damages for contractual breach but later sought to expand their legal position by requesting compensation. The Court deemed this new claim inadmissible as it referred to the same facts as the original claim. This aspect is crucial for understanding how Italian jurisprudence handles claims in litigation.

The Distinction Between "Facere" and "Dare" Obligations

The judgment clarifies that, within the context of Art. 1381 of the Civil Code, there are two types of obligations at play. On one side, there is the obligation to "facere," which implies a duty to ensure that a third party fulfills an obligation. On the other side, there is the obligation to "dare," which comes into effect when, despite efforts, the third party refuses to comply. This distinction is fundamental for determining the legitimacy of claims filed in court.

  • Obligation to "facere": to act so that the third party performs the promised action.
  • Obligation to "dare": to provide compensation if the third party does not comply.
OF THE OBLIGATION OR OF THE ACT OF THE THIRD PARTY Promise of the obligation or act of the third party - Original claim for damages for breach of the obligation to act - Claim for compensation under Art. 1381 of the Civil Code presented during the clarification of conclusions - Admissibility - Exclusion - Basis - Case law. Regarding the promise of the obligation or act of the third party, the claim for compensation under Art. 1381 of the Civil Code presented during the clarification of conclusions is inadmissible as it is new if the original claim for damages for breach of the obligation to act was made regarding the same facts; in the case provided for by the aforementioned Art. 1381 of the Civil Code, the cause of action is indeed different since the promisor assumes a first obligation to "facere," consisting of acting so that the third party behaves as promised, in order to satisfy the interest of the promisee, and a second obligation to "dare," namely to provide compensation in the case where, despite having acted, the third party refuses to engage. (In this case, the Court confirmed the judgment that declared inadmissible the claim for compensation made by the buyer at auction of a property, subsequently awarded but occupied despite the expiration of the term set for its release, as the appellant had originally acted only for the compensation of damages from contractual breach).

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16979 of 2024 highlights the importance of a proper setup of legal claims in litigation. The distinction between "facere" and "dare" obligations is crucial to avoid the inadmissibility of claims and to ensure that the rights of the parties are adequately protected. Legal practitioners must therefore pay attention to these nuances to avoid procedural errors that could compromise their claims for damages or compensation.

Bianucci Law Firm