article 2 of Law n.351 of b 12.08.74, provides for the nullity of contractual clauses relating to advance payment of the fee for a number of months over three months.
The law subsequently introduced regulations on hiring, l.392/78, nothing about this policy provides, however, the Court of Cassation (sez.III, n.14470 of 30.05.08) recently ruled that the second source of law is not be understood as a substitute and then repeal the whole of the first being some of the more dated aspects perfectly compatible with the legal text of 1978.
In conclusion it must be held void the contract clause providing for the payment of the fee in advance of more than three months and, by extension, one that requires a security deposit greater than the same period.
The Supreme Court justifies the interpretation that the principle of non-profit beyond certain parameters by the lessor. The availability of an unjustified and substantial liquidity so ahead of the consideration would make a profit through the investment of the amounts received.
This interpretation is questionable, however, forced from the free bargaining, so much so that the legal text of 1978 included nothing about it and today, in a liberal-oriented State, should be the task of government policies in support of the lessor with tools such as tax relief and not to penalize the landlord sees impair his freedom to dispose of property it owns.
In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court refers to the Court of Appeals to determine under the principle established and the invalidity of a clause requiring payment of royalties every six months early, the conditions of "gross misconduct" in order for the eviction for non-payment.
The law subsequently introduced regulations on hiring, l.392/78, nothing about this policy provides, however, the Court of Cassation (sez.III, n.14470 of 30.05.08) recently ruled that the second source of law is not be understood as a substitute and then repeal the whole of the first being some of the more dated aspects perfectly compatible with the legal text of 1978.
In conclusion it must be held void the contract clause providing for the payment of the fee in advance of more than three months and, by extension, one that requires a security deposit greater than the same period.
The Supreme Court justifies the interpretation that the principle of non-profit beyond certain parameters by the lessor. The availability of an unjustified and substantial liquidity so ahead of the consideration would make a profit through the investment of the amounts received.
This interpretation is questionable, however, forced from the free bargaining, so much so that the legal text of 1978 included nothing about it and today, in a liberal-oriented State, should be the task of government policies in support of the lessor with tools such as tax relief and not to penalize the landlord sees impair his freedom to dispose of property it owns.
In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court refers to the Court of Appeals to determine under the principle established and the invalidity of a clause requiring payment of royalties every six months early, the conditions of "gross misconduct" in order for the eviction for non-payment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment