Commentary on Judgment No. 423 of 2025: Repetition of Undue Payment and Termination for Breach

The recent judgment No. 423 of 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in contract law: the repetition of undue payment in the event of contract termination due to breach. This jurisprudential intervention, by President M. D. and Rapporteur M. F., provides important clarifications on how to handle situations where a contract is terminated due to a breach, analyzing the lack of a valid cause for acquisition and the consequent legal actions.

The Issue of Lack of Valid Cause for Acquisition

The maxim expressed in the judgment states that:

Generally. Once the lack of a valid cause for acquisition has been ascertained following the termination of the contract for breach, the legal action granted to recover what was performed in execution of the contract is that of repetition of objective undue payment.

This passage highlights how, when a contract is terminated due to a breach, the party who has fulfilled their obligations has the right to reclaim what was performed, as there is no longer a valid cause for the retention of such performances. The lack of a valid cause for acquisition, in fact, implies that the performance no longer has a valid legal basis.

Consequent Legal Actions

When a contractual breach occurs, the parties involved can undertake various legal actions. Specifically, they can resort to:

• Claim for performance: request for the execution of the obligations provided for in the contract.
• Claim for termination: request to annul the contract due to breach.
• Repetition of undue payment: action to obtain the refund of sums paid.

The choice of action depends on the specific circumstances of the case. Judgment No. 423 clarifies that, in the presence of a breach, the most appropriate action is that of repetition of undue payment, as it allows for the recovery of what was paid without a valid cause.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 423 of 2025 offers an important clarification in contract law, emphasizing the significance of the lack of a valid cause for acquisition and the consequent action for repetition of undue payment. This jurisprudential trend is part of a broader context of protecting the rights of parties in a contract and represents a useful reference for lawyers and legal professionals. Understanding these dynamics is fundamental not only for correctly managing contractual disputes but also for ensuring fair protection of clients' rights.