Key Legal Interpretations by the Cassation Bench on Article 1757

Cassation Case No. 104422:

  • Interpretation: The Cassation Bench ruled that Article 1757 of the Civil Code supports a party’s right to demand performance from the other party if they have fulfilled or are ready to fulfill their own reciprocal obligations. In this case, the applicant’s request for payment of an agreed-upon sum before transferring shares was found valid because the appellant had fulfilled other obligations and was ready to transfer the shares upon payment.

Cassation Case No. 107065:

  • Interpretation: The Bench stated that the spirit of Civil Code Article 1757 dictates that one contracting party can only demand performance from the other without delay if they have fulfilled their own obligation in time.
  • Application: If a party (e.g., a seller) fails to meet their own prerequisite obligation (like making an advance payment as per tender rules), they cannot then claim penalties for delays from the other party (the buyer), as the delay was caused by their own failure to fulfill their reciprocal duty.

Cassation Case No. 113989:

  • Interpretation: The Cassation Bench held that a party requesting contract performance must have first fulfilled their own prior obligations under the contract.
  • Application: The respondent’s claim for transportation costs was deemed unacceptable under Article 1757 because the respondent was responsible for the premature termination of the contract and had not fulfilled their reciprocal obligations, such as allowing the contract to run its term.

Cassation Case No. 118963

  • Interpretation: The Cassation Bench directly interpreted Article 1757 to mean that a contracting party who demands performance of an obligation must immediately perform their own reciprocal obligation or be ready to perform it.
  • Application: The Bench found that the lower courts erred by ordering the transfer of property documents without simultaneously ordering the payment of the remaining balance, as the contract stipulated payment upon transfer, emphasizing that both parties must be ready to fulfill their concurrent obligations.

Cassation Case No. 123867:

  • Interpretation: Reiterating the principle of Article 1757, the Bench stated that a party demanding performance must immediately perform or be ready to perform their own obligation, unless otherwise specified by contract or law.
  • Application: The respondent, in this case, failed to fulfill their reciprocal obligation (timely notification to the insurer of the contractor’s failure) as stipulated in the contract. Therefore, they could not compel the appellant (insurer) to fulfill their obligation. The court explicitly referenced a previous binding interpretation (case no. 39568, volume 8) for this principle.

Cassation Case No. 124771:

  • Interpretation: Article 1757 implies that a party responsible for delays due to their own failure to fulfill reciprocal obligations cannot claim penalties for delay from the other party.
  • Application: In a construction contract, the employer (respondent) was responsible for delays because they failed to provide an appropriate design and materials, preventing the contractor (appellant) from starting work. Thus, the employer could not penalize the contractor for the ensuing delays.

Cassation Case No. 139969:

  • Interpretation: This case reaffirms the principle that a party must fulfill its own reciprocal obligations, especially preconditions stipulated in a contract (like timely written notification to an insurer), before demanding performance from the other party.
  • Application: The appellant failed to notify the respondent (insurer) in writing about the contractor’s defects as required by the guarantee. The court ruled that due to this failure to meet a precondition, the appellant could not compel the insurer to fulfill its obligation under Article 1757.

Cassation Case No. 158350:

  • Interpretation: This case reaffirms the binding interpretations from Cassation Case No. 139969 (and 140708, though not provided in these sources) that a party must meet the preconditions stipulated in a guarantee document (e.g., timely notification of a contractor’s failure) to demand payment from the guarantor (insurer) under Civil Code Article 1757.
  • Application: The court determined that the appellant had not informed the second respondent (insurer) about the first respondent’s (contractor’s) failure within the stipulated time. Consequently, the appellant could not demand payment from the insurer.

Cassation Case No. 162833:

  • Interpretation: Article 1757 requires a party seeking performance to first fulfill their own prerequisite obligations under the contract.
  • Application: The court found that the buyers (respondents) had not fulfilled their obligation to pay the remaining balance, basing their refusal on a condition (a prior seller’s spouse’s signature) that was external to their specific contract. Therefore, their demand for the transfer of the property documents was invalid. The case was also remanded to the lower court to specifically determine the fulfillment of mutual obligations under Article 1757.

Cassation Case No. 171518:

  • Interpretation: This case explicitly reiterates the core principle of Civil Code Article 1757: a party requesting performance of a contract must have first fulfilled their own prior obligations.
  • Application: If a contractor (first respondent) did not prove that they completed the construction work as per the contract, their claim for payment for the construction work is invalid, as they have not fulfilled their prerequisite obligation.

Cassation Case No. 172382:

  • Interpretation: The Cassation Bench clearly stated that a party filing a claim for contract performance must prove that they have fulfilled their own obligations or are ready to do so, as per Civil Code Article 1757. A court can only order the other party to perform if the claimant’s fulfillment of their own obligations is proven.
  • Application: The court found that the lower courts erred by ruling solely on an “admission” without properly assessing whether the plaintiff had fulfilled their reciprocal obligation (e.g., transferring title) that the defendant claimed was a precondition for payment.

Cassation Case No. 174079:

  • Interpretation: This case reiterates that Civil Code Article 1757 requires a party seeking performance to prove they have fulfilled or are ready to fulfill their own obligations (e.g., delivery of goods) as a prerequisite for their claim.
  • Application: The court affirmed a lower court’s decision which correctly applied Article 1757 by concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove the delivery of goods, which was a necessary prerequisite for demanding payment, thereby invalidating their claim.

Cassation Case No. 176329:

  • Interpretation: Under Civil Code Article 1757, an insured party must prove that they have fulfilled their premium payment obligation before demanding compensation from the insurer.
  • Application: The case was remanded to the lower court for further investigation into whether the premium payment, made via a check that initially lacked sufficient funds, was effectively fulfilled by the time the accident occurred, to determine if the reciprocal obligation was met as per the specific provisions of the commercial code regarding insurance premiums.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top