Analysis of Judgment No. 573 of 2025: The Loan Agreement and Family Cohabitation

The recent ruling No. 573 of January 9, 2025, issued by the Court of Appeal of Turin, provides an important legal interpretation regarding the loan agreement, especially in relation to the use of the asset to allow a borrower to "live with their family." This judgment is consistent with the regulations provided by Article 1809 of the Civil Code, which governs the loan agreement, and raises significant questions regarding the duration and conditions of the return of the asset.

The Loan Clause and Its Interpretation

In particular, the Court established that the loan agreement, even in the presence of clauses that require the return of the asset within thirty days of request, is not necessarily characterized by precariousness. This means that, despite such conditions, the duration of the loan can be inferred from the use agreed upon by the parties. This interpretation is fundamentally linked to the principle of stability of the contract, which favors the expressed will of the contracting parties.

The Role of Termination Clauses

A relevant aspect of the ruling concerns the immediate termination clauses in the event of marital separation or the death of the borrower. The Court clarified that these clauses, while present in the contract, do not alter the nature of the loan as an instrument of cohabitation. In fact, such provisions can be considered a form of justified withdrawal, which applies only if the use of the asset deviates from the original intent of family residence.

In general, the loan agreement that contains the clause allowing the borrower to use the asset for the specific purpose of "living with their family" is subject to the provisions of Article 1809 of the Civil Code, not being characterized by precariousness, because its duration can be inferred by relation from the agreed use between the parties, without the clause included in the same contract, which requires the obligation to return the asset within thirty days of request, being an obstacle to this conclusion, nor the one that contemplates immediate termination in the case of marital separation or the death of the borrower, both being referable to justified withdrawal due to use for a purpose other than the cohabitation of the borrower with the family.

Final Considerations

In conclusion, judgment No. 573 of 2025 represents an important step forward in defining the loan agreement, clarifying how contractual clauses should be interpreted in light of the actual use of the asset. This approach reflects a jurisprudential trend aimed at protecting the rights of the borrower, especially in family contexts. It is essential for those entering into a loan agreement to pay attention to the formulation of clauses, so that they clearly reflect the intentions of the parties and do not compromise the stability of the contractual relationship.

Bianucci Law Firm