CON LA MANO IZQUIERDA… ¡Y TAMBIÉN CON LA DERECHA! ¿Es posible que un contratante solicite una indemnización por una causal distinta de aquella en la que sustentó la resolución del Contrato?

This paper analyzes the feasibility of a contracting party requesting an indemnity for a reason other than the one on which the termination of the contract was based. For this purpose, two theories have been evaluated: incompatibility and compatibility. The first one states that it is necessary that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Castillo Freyre, Mario, Rosas Berastain, Verónica, Silva-Santisteban Amésquita, Massiel
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:Perú
Institución:Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Repositorio:PUCP-Institucional
Idioma:español
OAI Identifier:oai:repositorio.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.14657/203138
Acceso en línea:https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/forojuridico/article/view/30180/27067
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Contract termination
Civil liability
Indemnity
Breach of contract
Unilateral termination
Withdrawal
Compensation for damages
Resolución del contrato
Responsabilidad civil
Indemnización
Incumplimiento
Terminación unilateral
Desistimiento del contrato
Resarcimiento de perjuicios
https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.00
Descripción
Sumario:This paper analyzes the feasibility of a contracting party requesting an indemnity for a reason other than the one on which the termination of the contract was based. For this purpose, two theories have been evaluated: incompatibility and compatibility. The first one states that it is necessary that whoever demands the termination of the contractual relationship and the recognition of an indemnity right, invokes the same cause as a basis for its claims. On the other hand, the second admits the compatibility of both claims, denying that the faithful contracting party, who has a unilateral termination right under the contract, is forced to resort to termination for non-performance in order to preserve its right to damages. Our conclusion is that only the thesis of compatibility is admissible, since this thesis is in accordance with the way in which the figures of termination and contractual liability are regulated and, also, because it is the position that is in accordance with the principles of justice and efficiency that should always guide the application of legal institutions.