Commentary on Judgment No. 19246 of 2024: The Right of Withdrawal and the Role of Default

Judgment No. 19246 of July 12, 2024, provides significant insights on the subject of contractual withdrawal, exploring the necessary conditions to exercise this right under Article 1385 of the Civil Code. In particular, the Court clarified that anyone who decides to withdraw from a contract must not be in default, a principle rooted in the need to maintain contractual balance between the parties.

The Right of Withdrawal and Its Preconditions

The right of withdrawal, as provided by Article 1385 of the Civil Code, allows one of the parties to unilaterally dissolve the contract, but under certain conditions. The ruling reiterated that:

  • The withdrawing party must be in compliance with their obligations.
  • The judge of merit has the power to ascertain any default and its relevance.
  • It is necessary to evaluate whether the default has caused a significant alteration of the contractual balance.

The Role of the Judge of Merit

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the importance of the merit assessment. In fact, the verification of the default by the withdrawing party falls within the judge's powers, who must carry out a global and proportional evaluation. The Court emphasized that such verification must be adequately justified and may concern:

Withdrawal pursuant to Article 1385, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code - Preconditions - No default of the withdrawing party - Necessity - Evaluation criterion - Verification by the judge of merit - Consequences. Regarding the exercise of the right of withdrawal under Article 1385 of the Civil Code, the party exercising the withdrawal must not themselves be in default, and the verification of their default, falling within the powers of the judge of merit and unchallengeable if adequately justified, must consider the value of the part of the obligation not fulfilled in relation to the whole, based on a proportionality criterion, requiring an examination, following a comprehensive and global assessment of the behavior of the parties, of whether, due to the default of the withdrawing party, there has been a significant alteration of the contractual balance to the detriment of the counterparty, or whether such alteration does not depend on the default of the counterparty.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 19246 of 2024 represents an important clarification in the field of contract law, stating that the right of withdrawal cannot be exercised by someone in a position of default. The judge's assessment, which must be careful and justified, plays a fundamental role in the balance between the contracting parties. This judicial orientation offers useful guidance to those who find themselves facing similar situations, emphasizing the importance of fair and good faith behavior in contractual relationships.

Bianucci Law Firm