Analysis of Ordinance No. 18545 of 2024: Specific Performance of the Preliminary Contract

The recent Ordinance No. 18545 of July 8, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the specific performance of the obligation to conclude a preliminary contract. In this ruling, the Court emphasizes the necessity of the substantial identity of the asset subject to transfer between the preliminary contract and the definitive contract.

The Context of the Ruling

The case at hand involved a conflict between the parties, T. and S., related to a preliminary sales contract. The central issue was whether it was possible, in the event of default, to substitute the asset originally specified in the preliminary contract with another asset. The Court ruled that the specific performance of the obligation to conclude the contract presupposes a substantial identity of the asset. This means that, in the case of forced execution, the judge cannot replace the original asset with a different one, even if the parties request it.

The Ruling's Maxim

COMPROMISE (DEFINITION, CHARACTERISTICS, DISTINCTION) - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION TO CONCLUDE THE CONTRACT Preliminary contract - Specific performance of the obligation to conclude the contract - Preconditions - Substantial identity of the asset subject to transfer provided in the preliminary and definitive contracts - Consequences - Case law. The substantial identity of the asset subject to transfer constitutes an indispensable connecting element between the preliminary contract and the definitive contract, with the consequence that, regarding specific performance of the obligation to conclude a contract, according to Article 2932 of the Civil Code, the sentence that substitutes the unexecuted definitive contract - must necessarily reproduce, in the form of the judicial provision, the same arrangement of interests assumed by the parties as the content of the preliminary contract, without the possibility of introducing changes – cannot have as its object an apartment or more apartments chosen by the prospective buyer that differ from those contemplated in the preliminary agreement as the subject of the future transfer and located on a different floor of the building being constructed.

Implications and Reflections

The ruling in question has several implications for legal professionals and citizens. It is crucial to understand that the preliminary contract is not a mere formal act, but an agreement that establishes well-defined rights and duties. The Court, referring to Article 2932 of the Civil Code, clarifies that the substantial identity of the asset is an essential prerequisite for specific performance. This implies that, in the event of default, any ruling must remain faithful to the initial object of the contract, avoiding changes that could alter the original balance of the parties' interests.

  • Importance of clarity in the preliminary contract.
  • Need for adequate legal advice for contract drafting.
  • Risks associated with modifying contractual terms without consent.
Bianucci Law Firm