With recent ruling no. 2068\/2026, the Milan Court of Appeal addressed a particularly significant issue in the sale and purchase of movable property and supply of goods, overturning a first-instance decision regarding the quantification of damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this specific case, an energy distributor had signed a contract to purchase the entire energy production of certain hydroelectric plants, only to later be required to verify the seller's breach of its commitment. Faced with the issue of quantifying the damages and overturning the Court's first-instance decision, the Court of Appeal held that it could apply Article 1518 of the Civil Code, an exceptional provision rarely applied in case law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The key points of the decision can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udd39 Exception to general principles: Article 1518 of the Civil Code introduces a special criterion that derogates from the general principles of contractual liability (pursuant to Article 1223 of the Civil Code) for movable property with a current price.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udd39 Absolute presumption of minimal damages: the law recognizes the fulfilling party's right to receive the difference between the agreed price and the current price at the place and on the day of delivery, regardless of proof of having suffered actual damages or having made replacement purchases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udd39 Exemption from the burden of proof: in the presence of fungible goods with a market price (such as electricity), the prejudice is presumed ex lege<\/em> both in the\u2019an<\/em> that in quantum<\/em>, relieving the creditor from burdens of allegation that are often impossible in complex business contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n