[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The Autonomy of the Action for Damages in Contrast with Actions for Performance and Termination of Contract
[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]In the intricate world of contract law, the action for damages emerges as an autonomous entity, completely independent from other actions or claims related to contracts. The widely held belief that this action is irremediably linked to the validity of the contract generating the obligation has sown confusion in many legal fields. However, this article aims, like a beacon, to dissipate that fog, illuminating the clear legal reality. The Civil Code, as a pillar of the legal system, establishes the solid foundations of this autonomy in its articles. Article 1357 is the cornerstone that reinforces the principle of independence of the action for damages. With unwavering clarity, it demonstrates that this action is not subject to the validity of the contract that originates the obligation. Here lies the starting point of our exploration under this hypothesis: "the action for damages arises as a singular entity, free of contractual ties regarding its exercise."Article 1357.If the obligation is to do and the debtor defaults, the creditor may request, along with compensation for the delay, any of these three (3) things, at his choice:
- That the debtor be compelled to carry out the agreed act.
- That he be authorized to have it executed by a third party at the debtor's expense.
- That the debtor compensate him for any damages resulting from the breach of contract.
(Note choice 3, which makes no reference to actions for enforcement or termination of the contract that gave rise to the obligation.) The framework for this autonomy is firmly cemented throughout various articles. Articles 1360, 1364, and 1365, with their precise and direct language, consolidate the essence of this action. Article 1360 establishes that damages apply to those who, in the performance of their obligations, have incurred fraud, negligence, or delay. Here, we find no reference to the validity of the contract as a condition. In Article 1364, the obligation to compensate arises from the moment the debtor defaults or, if the obligation is to refrain from performing, from the moment of the breach. Again, the emphasis is on the breach of the obligation and its effect, not on the current status of the contract at the time the action is brought. Thus, a new and distinct action arises, independent of the continued validity of the underlying contract. Article 1365 adds to the concept of compensation, encompassing both the loss suffered and the profit the creditor failed to obtain. The root of the confusion stems from Article 1386, which addresses the power to terminate obligations. However, this provision is directly related to the action for damages. This provision, despite its clarity, has become entangled in the misperception that it places the action for damages in a close relationship with actions for performance or termination.Article 1386.The power to resolve obligationsIt is understood to be implicit in the reciprocal obligations, in case one of the obligated parties does not comply with what is incumbent upon them. The injured party may choose between demanding compliance or the resolution of the obligation,withcompensation for damages and payment of interest in both cases; You may also request termination, even after having opted for compliance, when this proves impossible.Note first that the rule refers to the action of resolution “The power to resolve obligations”. Then, in case of non-compliance, the complying party can request: “the fulfillment or resolution of the obligation” “…with[1]…” a preposition in the Spanish language that in this case means jointly or in company. It is at this point that the scholar Dr. Pedro Arismendi Lairet sheds light on the situation, arguing that the actions for termination, enforcement of the contract, and damages are independent and related, arising from the same breach of contract. PEDRO ARISMENDI LAIRET in an article entitled “Autonomy of the action for contractual damages" published in 1939.[2]“…Contractual damages do not arise from a judicial decision or an enforcement action, but from the total or partial breach of contract. These are three related actions, since they arise from a single source. As related actions, they cannot be mutually dependent. Once breach is proven, all actions filed are admissible, or at least the only one proposed..” (p. 200) “…The accumulation permitted by law is not intended to establish any subordination of actions, but only for the purpose of procedural economy, so that when the creditor has an interest not only in the reparation of damages but also in a judicial declaration of resolution, he is not forced to follow two trials and can achieve both ends in one. . ." (pp. 200-201) So it is not true that the law requires that the claim or action for damages be coupled with the performance or termination of a contract, as is commonly the case in practice. A sample button. Civil Amparo JudgmentAC-1004-22 15/11/2022(Honduras)[3]This review examines an action (a claim for payment of damages caused in accordance with contractual obligations) that has neither a claim for performance nor a claim for termination accrued. Throughout the judgment, there is no reference to the fact that it was brought independently of the validity of the contract; it only mentions that the obligation originates in a contractual basis. In essence, this analysis unravels the mystery and brings the truth into focus. The autonomy of the action for damages shines as a foundational principle in contract law. This document clarifies that the action for damages may be brought independently, without the need for accrual with other actions. The final conclusion is unequivocal: the action for damages is an entity independent of other actions in the vast universe of contract law. As professionals, we want to put our services at your disposal to assist you in the defense of your rights, whether through judicial or arbitration proceedings. If you consider that there has been a breach of obligations in any legal transaction and you consider that it has affected your assets or you have stopped receiving profits, contact us for an appointment with our team or you can write to us atmcanelas@lexincorp.comandinfohn@lexincorp.comIt will be a pleasure to work with you and help you achieve your goals. See you soon![1] https://dle.rae.es/con [2] http://ulpiano.org.ve/revistas/bases/artic/texto/RDUCV/43/rucv_1969_43_51-75.pdf [3] PDFAmparo.aspx (poderjudicial.gob.hn) [/vc_column_text][vc_column_text] Written by: Lic. Max CAnales Castro [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
