Contract Termination and Deposit: Commentary on Order No. 21317 of 2024

On July 30, 2024, the Court of Cassation issued Order No. 21317, addressing a matter of significant importance in the field of contracts: the distinction between the request for contract termination and that of the legitimacy of withdrawal. The ruling represents an important clarification for the jurisprudence in this area, especially regarding the application of Article 1385 of the Italian Civil Code.

The Legal Context

The case originated from a dispute between S. (M. F. P.) and G. (S. A.) concerning the legitimacy of withdrawal from a contract and the retention of the confirmatory deposit. In particular, the Court examined whether the request for contract termination could be considered a new request compared to that of the legitimacy of withdrawal.

In general, the request for contract termination does not constitute a new request compared to that with which the non-defaulting party originally requested a declaration of the legitimacy of their withdrawal under Article 1385, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, with simultaneous retention of the confirmatory deposit, as the action of withdrawal is a case of resolution by law.

Analysis of the Maxim

The maxim reported by the Order highlights a fundamental aspect: the request for termination should not be regarded as a new procedural act, but rather as a continuation of the initial request aimed at obtaining a declaration of legitimate withdrawal. This aspect is based on the principle that withdrawal, justified by contractual clauses or situations of default, is in itself a form of contract termination, as provided by law.

  • Article 1385 of the Civil Code: Rule on the confirmatory deposit and its treatment in case of termination.
  • Article 1453 of the Civil Code: General regulations on contract termination due to default.
  • Jurisprudence: References to previous rulings that confirm this orientation.

Practical Implications

This ruling has significant implications for contractual parties. It clarifies that if a party decides to withdraw from a contract invoking Article 1385, the subsequent request for termination should not be considered a new issue to be addressed, but a necessary continuation of the legal dialogue. This allows for greater fluidity in contractual disputes, avoiding burdening litigation with redundant requests.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 21317 of 2024 provides a clear interpretation of the relationship between withdrawal and contract termination, simplifying the management of disputes related to the confirmatory deposit. Legal professionals and contracting parties must keep this orientation in mind to address contractual issues that may arise in a conscious and strategic manner.

Bianucci Law Firm