The Joined Chambers of the Supreme Court (2019) ruled that, in “building actions” governed by Articles 1490 and 1492 of the Civil Code, it is up to the buyer to prove the existence of the reported defects and not to the seller to demonstrate having delivered a good that is free from them. In such actions, in fact, the delivery of a defective good does not con-stitute in breach of an obligation of the seller, therefore the burden of proof requires a different discipline than the one governing the obligatory relationships, according to which when the creditor complains about the non-fulfillment, it is up to the debtor to demonstrate to have acted correctly. However, the fact that the burden of proof is on the buyer does not seem to find its rationale in the peculiar nature of the “warranty for defects”, since this is not extraneous to the area of contractual responsibility; but, above all, because also in the actions consequent to the lack of conformity, aimed at asserting non-fulfillment, the burden of proof is, as a general rule, on the buyer.
In Cass., SS. UU., 11748/2019, è stato affermato che, nelle azioni edilizie regolate agli artt. 1490 e 1492 c.c., spetta al compratore provare l’esistenza dei vizi denunciati e non già al venditore dimostrare di avere consegnato una cosa da essi immune: non costituendo la consegna di una cosa viziata inadempimento rispetto a un’obbligazione del venditore, in tali azioni l’onere della prova reclamerebbe una disciplina diversa rispetto a quella che governa i rapporti obbligatori, secondo cui dinanzi al creditore che lamenti l’altrui inadempimento spetta al debitore dimostrare di avere agito correttamente. La circostanza che l’onere probatorio grava sul compratore, tuttavia, non sembra trovare ragione nella peculiare natura della garanzia per i vizi, giacché questa si mostra tutt’altro che estranea all’area della generale responsabilità contrattuale; ma, anche e soprattutto, perché pure nelle azioni conseguenti al difetto di conformità, dirette a fare valere un inadempimento, l’onere grava, per regola generale, sul compratore.
Garanzia per vizi della cosa venduta e onere probatorio
Proto M
2020-01-01
Abstract
The Joined Chambers of the Supreme Court (2019) ruled that, in “building actions” governed by Articles 1490 and 1492 of the Civil Code, it is up to the buyer to prove the existence of the reported defects and not to the seller to demonstrate having delivered a good that is free from them. In such actions, in fact, the delivery of a defective good does not con-stitute in breach of an obligation of the seller, therefore the burden of proof requires a different discipline than the one governing the obligatory relationships, according to which when the creditor complains about the non-fulfillment, it is up to the debtor to demonstrate to have acted correctly. However, the fact that the burden of proof is on the buyer does not seem to find its rationale in the peculiar nature of the “warranty for defects”, since this is not extraneous to the area of contractual responsibility; but, above all, because also in the actions consequent to the lack of conformity, aimed at asserting non-fulfillment, the burden of proof is, as a general rule, on the buyer.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.