Commentary on Judgment No. 23434 of 2024: Independent Guarantee Contract and Extinguishment of the Obligation

Judgment No. 23434 of August 30, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers significant insights into the dynamics of the independent guarantee contract. In particular, it addresses the issue of the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation and the guarantor's ability to oppose the beneficiary's claim, even in the absence of bad faith on the latter's part. This article aims to analyze the main legal aspects emerging from the ruling, seeking to simplify the discussion to make it accessible to all.

Independent Guarantee Contract: Notions and Characteristics

The independent guarantee contract is an agreement through which a party, the guarantor, undertakes to satisfy the debt of a third party, the beneficiary, should the principal debtor fail to perform. This contractual form is distinguished by its independence from the principal relationship, meaning that the guarantor cannot raise defenses related to the underlying contract against the beneficiary.

• Independence from the principal relationship.
• Obligation to pay upon the beneficiary's demand.
• Possibility to assert the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation.

The Relevance of the Extinguishment of the Guaranteed Obligation

Independent guarantee contract - Extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation - Assertability by the guarantor - Bad faith of the accipiens - Relevance - Exclusion - Basis. In matters concerning the independent guarantee contract, the guarantor called upon for performance, in order to thwart the beneficiary's claim, may always assert the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation (even if the creditor's conduct does not involve the bad faith that legitimizes the so-called exceptio doli), since the non-existence (original or supervening) of the principal currency relationship, by excluding the very abstract verifiability of the financial loss that could have resulted to the beneficiary creditor from the non-performance, deprives the guarantee of its justifying reason.

The above summary highlights how, if the guarantor is called upon, they can always assert the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation, regardless of the creditor's conduct. This is of fundamental importance, as it allows the guarantor to effectively defend themselves against unjustified claims by the beneficiary.

Legal Implications and Regulatory References

The judgment is based on principles established by the Civil Code, particularly Articles 1322 and 1939. Article 1322, in fact, recognizes freedom of contract, while Article 1939 specifically governs the guarantee contract. This ruling fits within a jurisprudential context that has seen an evolution in the recognition of the guarantor's rights, as also highlighted by previous judgments (e.g., No. 8342 of 2017 and No. 30509 of 2019). The Court wished to clarify that the non-existence of the principal obligation, whether original or supervening, excludes the legitimacy of the beneficiary's claim.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 23434 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of the guarantor in an independent guarantee contract. It reiterates the importance of the extinguishment of the guaranteed obligation as a valid defense against unfounded claims. Legal professionals should pay particular attention to these dynamics, as they can significantly influence defense strategies in guarantee-related litigation. Awareness of these provisions can make a difference in the planning and management of guarantee contracts.