[Autom. eng. transl.] The subject relates to the debate, still alive in doctrine and jurisprudence, about the conditions for proposing the resolution action, on the one hand, and the action for compensation from scratch, on the other, in the proceeding started to obtain the fulfillment. Called to settle the current conflict, the Joint Sections of the Cassation have, with the sentence in question, taken from last position for an extensive orientation of the rule referred to in the 2nd paragraph of the art. 1453 cod. civ., interpreting it as including the faculty, by the non-defaulting contractor, to also propose claims for damages, as they implement the same ratio of concentration and fullness of protection that allows the change in demand from compliance to resolution, so as to guarantee an adequate realization of the law in compliance with a principle of procedural economy. The present study traces the reasons given by the SC as the foundation of the thesis supported, highlighting the evolutions with respect to the traditional thesis but also the limits and second thoughts, the latter perhaps proof of a path not yet completely completed towards a coherent and conscious recognition of the favor novorum for the benefit of the non-defaulting contractor.
|Translated title of the contribution||[Autom. eng. transl.] The Court of Cassation retraces its steps (but up to a certain point): the admissibility of the claim for damages and the limit of the events that occurred.|
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||LA NUOVA GIURISPRUDENZA CIVILE COMMENTATA|
|Publication status||Published - 2014|