How Long Can Water Retention

exception of improper filling of paper signed in black with the exception of unauthorized filling.

Civil Cassation, Sec. III, 1 September 2010, No 18989

who dispute the contents of a writing, stating that it has signed a blank sheet, you must submit a complaint of false only complain when the sheet has been filled total absence of any agreed ("no deal"). The use of the complaint are not necessary if the subscriber intends to support the sheet was filled in the sense not in accordance with the agreements reached ( against pacts ").

The principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, the subscriber's burden to prove:
- that the sheet had been filled by the shareholders in a manner different ( ... the mismatch between the declared and what is intended it to be stated)
- or bring action for fraud where wished to argue that the sheet had been filled in the absence of any agreement on its content.
(In this regard: Cass. Civ. Nn.2524/2006, 5245/2006, 6167/2009).

Here is the text of the judgment




Court of Cassation, sez. III CIVIL - Judgement of September 1, 2010, n.18989 - Pres Varrone - east. Chiarini

Conduct of case

With mention of the 1989 John D., as owner of the agency I. , Agreed to the Court of Catania Ada P. and Eugene R. and Mary M. Nunzia claiming that he had acted as intermediary on their behalf for the sale of a building, finished in October 1988 and that the parties were obliged to pay a commission of 3%, thus called for the condemnation of either party to pay him 4 million and five hundred pounds, more than accessories.
The defendants objected to the question: P. claimed that it had sold the property through advertisement in the newspaper except intermediaries ", and Mr and Mrs R. and M. relied on that in another visit to the apartment I. they did release a totally blank sheet signed and filled without any agreement between the parties.
The question was admissible only against R. and M. since the Court, recognizing its use of IRE. , Condemning them to an equitable pay one million pounds.
By June 7, 2005 ruling of the Court of Appeal of Catania, in favor of the appeal cross-spouse R. , Excluded the purchase of the apartment had been done by them due to the activity carried out by the ego. since he had signed a white card from it, where, between the apartments visited, there was at issue, and not being trusted the testimony of M., an official of I. , Uncertain and confused and contradicted by other texts, so that there was no evidence that the information upon subscription by the spouses R. - M. had been completed in terms resulting from the final content. It occurs to the Supreme
D. , In quality, which resist the M. and Joseph, and Simon R. , As heirs of the father in Eugene. Domiciliary declared by them to the death of the defender of them, the case was postponed today's hearing to allow him to appoint another.

Reasons for Decision

1. - In its first plea, the appellant alleges: "Violation and misapplication of rules of law. Failure, insufficient or contradictory reasoning as a decisive issue in the dispute (Art. 360 nn. Cpc 3:05 in reference to Arts. 1754 et seq. Cc). The fact that the heads
M. did visit the property in question to the spouses R. is not denied, but it is irrelevant that the keys were filed with the electrician P.
The reason, to obtain a different assessment of the findings of fact, it is unacceptable.
2. - The second alleges: "Violation and misapplication of rules of law. Failure, insufficient or contradictory reasoning as a decisive issue in the dispute (Art. 360 nn. Cpc 3:05 in reference to Arts. 1173 et seq. Cc).
Signing with which the R. is obliged to pay 3% of the sale price of the contract released from mediation and is a mandatory report with which he, with the purchase of a property listed in the template, obliged to pay that sum to be paid at the inception of the respective Act. Censorship is unacceptable
why not related to the ratio decidendi, as evidenced in the narrative, that there was no evidence that the card is signed by R. had been completed in terms resulting from the final content.
3. - The third plea alleges: "Violation and misapplication of rules of law. Failure, insufficient or contradictory reasoning as a decisive issue in the dispute (Art. 360 nn. Cpc 3:05 in reference to Arts. 214 et seq. Cpc and 221 et seq. Cpc). Since the
R. admitted signing the card was his burden to prove that it had been illegally filled proposing action for fraud and only in case of positive proof of this appeal, the Court could not take account of the document, while it considered false ex officio.
The reason is founded in reason.
reiterated that in case of signing the document in white who dispute the content of writing is not required to propose action for fraud if it is assumed that the filling has occurred "absque pactis" (Cass. 18059/2007) because in this case, the document leaves the sphere of control of the viewer the complete and final, so that the interpolation of the text invests the way to be objective of the act, so as to achieve a real material falsity, which excludes the origin of the document by the subscriber - should also be emphasized that he who, recognizing that it has signed the document, complains of his filling it deviates from the fixed price, has the burden of proving its objection to improper filling of "double pacta" and then sent to the default scribendum or non-correspondence between the declared and what it was intended to be declared (Cass. 2524/2006, 6167/2009) because they can not be excluded from the document by its subscribers, through filling these long ago just prior expressive result produced by formula to be adopted by the filler (Cass. 5245 / 2006).
Therefore the decision under appeal, in affirming that has not been achieved proof of the contents of the document at the time of its signing, has violated this principle because, at that time established that the document was blank, it was for the R. evidence that had been filled against pacta, or propose action for fraud when compiled absque pactis.
Therefore, the complaint must be accepted.
4. - The fourth plea alleges: "Violation and misapplication of rules of law. Failure, insufficient or contradictory reasoning as a decisive issue in the dispute (Art. 360 nn. Cpc 3:05 in reference to art. 91 CCP). "
The reason is absorbed from accepting the plea above.
conclude the sentence is quashed on appeal report upheld the plea and the case sent back for reconsideration in light of the principles first recalled. The national court will also provide for payment of the costs, the costs of the court of cassation.

PQM

The Court welcomes the third ground of appeal and reject the others, in connection with the ground of cash and returns, including for the costs of appeal, the Court of Appeal of Catania, another composition.
Deposited in Court Registry on 01.09.2010