Commentary on Judgment No. 18831 of 2024: Promise of Payment and Burden of Proof

The judgment no. 18831 of July 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers interesting insights regarding the regulation of non-transferable checks and promises of payment. In particular, the decision clarifies the responsibilities of the drawer in relation to the burden of proof when it comes to circumstances that could modify the effectiveness of a payment commitment.

The Context of the Judgment

In this specific case, the Court had to assess the existence of a promise of payment by Z. to P. through the issuance of a non-transferable check. The main issue was whether the issuance of such a check should be considered a valid promise of payment, or if there were elements that justified a purpose different from the mere payment commitment.

Non-transferable check with amount and indication of the beneficiary - Promise of payment - Existence - Burden of proof - Purpose different from the commitment to pay or the circulation against his will - On the drawer. The non-transferable check filled out by the issuer with the amount and the name of the beneficiary constitutes a promise of payment of the first to the second, with the consequence that it is the drawer's burden of proof to demonstrate a purpose, related to the inclusion of the beneficiary's name, different from the commitment to pay the amount indicated on the instrument to him, or that the subsequent circulation occurred against his will.

Burden of Proof and Legal Implications

The judgment clearly establishes that it is the drawer's burden to demonstrate that the inclusion of the beneficiary's name on the check had a purpose different from the mere promise of payment. This position is based on an interpretation of the provisions of the Civil Code, in particular articles 1988 and 2697, which respectively deal with the promise of payment and the burden of proof. Therefore, the drawer must prove that the intent was different; otherwise, the promise of payment remains valid and binding.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, judgment no. 18831 of 2024 represents an important precedent for Italian jurisprudence, especially concerning non-transferable checks and promises of payment. Companies and legal professionals must pay particular attention to these aspects, as proper management of documentation and a clear explanation of intentions can prevent future disputes. The non-transferable check, if used correctly, can prove to be a useful tool, but it is essential to understand the responsibilities that arise from it.

Bianucci Law Firm