The paper gives some focus concerning the sale with «retention of title», for instance the «sale on instalments». First of all, it is rejected the argument that this model of sale involves a kind of «temporary or dismembered ownership», as if the buyer ‒ before payment of all the instalments of the price ‒ would already have be the holder of some form of ownership over the "res" purchased. Conversely, until the transfer of domain with the complete payment, the exclusive owner still remains the seller. Than it means that the seller, keeping the ownership, is guaranteed for every payment due to him. More specifically this is a kind of sale where the effect of domain’s transfer is not subject to a term; on the contrary this effect of passage of ownership is been subjected to a suspensive condition, and namely the event uncertain consist into the same payment of installments: this case is basically a peculiar application of an Italian contract law category, called «default’s condition». This argument’s choice implies also that, once paid the last instalment, the condition consisting in an uncertain event has been realized: then, under provision of art. 1360 c.c., the property has been transferred retroactively to the buyer. The derogation of art. 1465, last paragraph c.c., and of the well known principle res perit domino ‒ concerning the liability of buyer, not yet owner, for a not attributable loss of the good sold ‒ is easily explainable: we only have to consider that purchaser, from the time of delivery, has the exclusive enjoyment of the good and the relative power of control on it. The buyer, although he is not yet owner until the total payment, is entitled to sue immediately the seller for the warranty of hidden defects. In addition, the buyer has to be qualified technically not like a possessor, but like a holder, so that he can still sue a third party who deprives him of enjoyment of good, under the provision of art. 1168, paragraph 2, c.c. Notwithstanding the general rules, it is assessed that seller and buyer are both titled to bring the action of rei vindicatio, although the buyer is not yet owner.
Lo scritto si occupa delle situazioni di appartenenza nella vendita con patto di riservato dominio. In esso l’A. revoca anzitutto in dubbio l’interpretazione secondo cui si tratterebbe di una proprietà temporanea, tale per cui il compratore – prima dell’integrale pagamento del prezzo – sarebbe già titolare di una qualche forma di diritto reale sul bene. Al contrario si afferma che, fino al passaggio del dominio, il proprietario esclusivo del bene resta il dante causa. Il che si traduce in un garanzia a suo favore riguardo all’obbligazione di pagamento. Più nel dettaglio, poi, si sostiene che ci troviamo di fronte a una vendita il cui effetto reale non è sottoposto a termine, ma sospensivamente condizionato all’evento futuro e incerto consistente nel pagamento delle rate (condizione di inadempimento). La qualificazione testé riportata comporta che, una volta pagata l’ultima rata, si sia avverato l’evento condizionante ex art. 1360 c.c. Ragion per cui la proprietà – in antitesi all’idea accolta dalla prevalente letteratura giuridica – passa retroattivamente in capo al compratore. La deroga al principio res perit domino trae il proprio fondamento logico dal rilievo che il compratore, dall’istante della consegna, ottiene il godimento esclusivo della res vendita e quindi il relativo potere di controllo su di essa. Poste queste basi, tale parte, pur priva del titolo di appartenenza piena fino al pagamento satisfattivo, è comunque legittimata ad esperire le azioni edilizie contro il venditore per vizi occulti. Inoltre il compratore è da qualificarsi alla stregua di un detentore: può pertanto esperire l’azione di spoglio contro terzi ex art. 1168, comma 2°, c.c. (e sul punto nulla quaestio), nonché eccezionalmente l’azione di manutenzione (art, 1170 c.c.) stante la sua posizione di «padronanza» sostanziale. Infine l’azione di rivendica è esercitabile sia dal venditore che dal compratore, sebbene questi – come detto – sia (precariamente) titolare di un’aspettativa condizionata al passaggio di titolarità.
Situazioni di appartenenza e garanzia nella riserva di proprietà
CALVO R
2015-01-01
Abstract
The paper gives some focus concerning the sale with «retention of title», for instance the «sale on instalments». First of all, it is rejected the argument that this model of sale involves a kind of «temporary or dismembered ownership», as if the buyer ‒ before payment of all the instalments of the price ‒ would already have be the holder of some form of ownership over the "res" purchased. Conversely, until the transfer of domain with the complete payment, the exclusive owner still remains the seller. Than it means that the seller, keeping the ownership, is guaranteed for every payment due to him. More specifically this is a kind of sale where the effect of domain’s transfer is not subject to a term; on the contrary this effect of passage of ownership is been subjected to a suspensive condition, and namely the event uncertain consist into the same payment of installments: this case is basically a peculiar application of an Italian contract law category, called «default’s condition». This argument’s choice implies also that, once paid the last instalment, the condition consisting in an uncertain event has been realized: then, under provision of art. 1360 c.c., the property has been transferred retroactively to the buyer. The derogation of art. 1465, last paragraph c.c., and of the well known principle res perit domino ‒ concerning the liability of buyer, not yet owner, for a not attributable loss of the good sold ‒ is easily explainable: we only have to consider that purchaser, from the time of delivery, has the exclusive enjoyment of the good and the relative power of control on it. The buyer, although he is not yet owner until the total payment, is entitled to sue immediately the seller for the warranty of hidden defects. In addition, the buyer has to be qualified technically not like a possessor, but like a holder, so that he can still sue a third party who deprives him of enjoyment of good, under the provision of art. 1168, paragraph 2, c.c. Notwithstanding the general rules, it is assessed that seller and buyer are both titled to bring the action of rei vindicatio, although the buyer is not yet owner.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.