HCCJ. Unilateral denunciation vs. purely optional clause

The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that can not be considered purely optional the clause by which parties to a contract of mandate foresaw the possibility of unilateral termination of it as such a clause is in accordance with the provisions of art. 1552 of the Civil Code. (Art. NCC 2030), according to which mandate goes through its revocation by mandator or the trustee of the office’s renunciation to the mandate. The High Court said that the suspensive purely optional condition present in the bilateral contracts is null, with the result of nullity of the contract for lack of cause, whether the creditor’s claim depends entirely on the will of his debtor who holds the creditor on his own terms, hypothesis that is not present in thise case. High Court underlined that the text of Art. 1552 of the Civil Code customizes provisions for mandate of art. 969 para. (2) Civil Code (art. NCC 1270) and represents a departure from the principle of symmetry concerning the contracting, in the sense that by essence, the mandate may also be dissolved by the will of a party, not only by consensus. (Decision no. 2060 of 5 June 2014 rendered in appeal by The Second Civil Division of The High Court of Cassation and Justice, covering declaration of non right to unilaterally terminate the contract of mandate)

:: The source: JURIDICE.ro

Anda Laura TĂNASE

Related posts