Search

Abstract: Articles 454 and 455 of the Civil Code are ambiguous in terms of the examples of the "right of rescission", the examples of "the implied condition of prohibition of the customer in the assignment" and the meaning of the word "void"; however, the supreme court decision as a unified judicial precedent No. 810 dated 24/06/2021is also vague and outside the scope of the lawsuits. A court has described the option of violation of the payment of installments and the delivery of the goods upon rescission as an implicit prohibition of the customer's assignment, and has ruled on the invalidity of the possessions and eviction. But in similar lawsuits, another court, from the terms of the same contract, did not describe such a concept, and with a different interpretation of the law, ruled against the seller. The supreme court emphasized the intent of the contracting parties in the case of the right to rescind the contract and return of goods sold, by commenting on an implicit matter, and did not comment on the legal status of the possession of the seller, and believes that the owner's right of priority does not invalidate the condition and the right of rescission against the return of the goods. While, according to the opinion of the majority of late and contemporary jurisprudents, deduced from Articles 454 and 455 of the Civil Code, the customer's right of assignment in the contractual right of rescission is dependent null. Thus, since the implicit matter of the return of goods sold and the request for eviction is based on the request for the cancellation of the assignment, the decision of the court is logically voidable.