Commentary on Judgment No. 19979 of 2024: Contractor's Liability and Defects in the Work

The recent ruling No. 19979 of July 19, 2024, by the Court of Cassation focused on a central theme in contract law: the contractor's liability for non-performance and the possibility for the client to raise objections regarding discrepancies and defects in the work. This ruling represents an important confirmation of the legal principles already established in this area, providing significant clarifications for industry operators and legal professionals.

The Regulatory Framework

According to the Italian Civil Code, particularly Articles 1667 and 1460, the client has the right to raise objections to the contractor regarding discrepancies and defects in the work, even when the warranty claim would be time-barred. This principle is based on the idea that no one can demand payment for work that has defects, in virtue of the principle of reciprocal non-performance.

Liability for non-performance of the contractor - Applicability of general principles regarding non-performance of obligations - Existence - Conditions - Exception of non-performance by the client - Admissibility - Failure to file a warranty claim - Irrelevance - Filing of a counterclaim - Necessity - Exclusion - Applicability of the principle also to professional service contracts. In the case of non-performance of the construction contract, when the work is completed, the client, sued for payment, may raise objections to the contractor regarding discrepancies and defects in the work, in virtue of the principle inadimpleti non est adimplendum, to which the more specific provision in the second sentence of the last paragraph of Article 1667 of the Civil Code is related, similar to the general provision in Article 1460 of the Civil Code regarding reciprocal contracts, even when the warranty claim would be time-barred and, independently, from the concurrent filing, by way of counterclaim, of such a claim, which may also be absent, without any prejudice to the admissibility of the exception in question. (In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that this principle also applies in the case of a service contract under Article 2226 of the Civil Code).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

Ruling No. 19979 of 2024 establishes that the client is not obligated to submit a warranty claim in order to raise objections regarding defects in the work. This aspect is crucial: clients often find it difficult to prove the presence of defects, but the Court has reiterated that objections are admissible even in the absence of a counterclaim. This significantly simplifies the client's position, ensuring greater protection of their rights.

  • The client can challenge the contractor without having to prove that they have already submitted a warranty claim.
  • The contractor's liability is well-defined, facilitating the resolution of disputes.
  • The principles of Articles 1667 and 1460 of the Civil Code also apply to professional service contracts.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 19979 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of clients' rights in construction contracts. With the clarification of liability principles and the ability to raise objections regarding defects and discrepancies in the work without having to file a warranty claim, greater legal certainty is provided to all parties involved. This orientation of the Court of Cassation aligns with European regulations aimed at ensuring the protection of the weaker parties in contracts.

Bianucci Law Firm