Negoziazione tra convenienti: rapporti patrimoniali

Abstract

The current work analyses the impact of Law No 76 of 20 May 2016 on the delimitation of the private autonomy of non-marital partners in the regulation of reciprocal property relations. The study consists of a comparison of the previous exegetical-legislative framework prior to the Novella and the following.It shows how the negotiationbetween partners was the main instrument for protecting their economic claims: first of all, it supplant a legal vacuum, whereas today, in the form of the cohabitation agreement, is the ad hoc instrument chosen by the legislature. Before the Novella, theeconomicmenage of the family of fact was implemented by means of the execution of isolated services between the partners, and the conclusion of specific contracts, both highly common and widely accepted, which were, however, strongly discussed at the point of qualification and discipline. The 2016 Law was awaited with a view of resolving these doubts definitively, but the investigation revealed that it was inappropriate. The Novella has none of the aforementioned isolated services and, although the cohabitation agreement is complete, regulates it in an ambiguous, imprecise and incomplete fashion, in particular in relation to the most problematic profile, which is the eligibility of clauses governing the effects of the voluntary dissolution of the relationship. The issue was strongly debated in the past. On the one hand, it was pointed out that this rule was the paradigmatic nature of the contract between life partners, since the crisis in the report is the elective location of the conflict between partners. On the other hand, the admissibility of these clauses was actively paid, by how many of them classified as illicit atypical agreements with non-material effects, suitable for the cover-up of personal obligations, by the indirect conditioning of the choice of the partners to continue or abort the relationship. The study therefore focuses on the impact of the codification of the cohabitation agreement on this particular debate, since in the case of the voluntary discontinuation of the relationship, the Novella reconciles the appearance of a mere maintenance obligation rather than the maintaining. We note that, owing to the ambiguity and incompleteness of the law, the interpretation of the law, the wording of which — paragraphs 50, 53 and 56 — remains open to the inclusion of the terms at issue in the cohabitation agreement. the legal literature, it is stated that there are alternative means of obtaining the aforementioned fine in an atypical contract or in a cartel after the termination of the report. However, the research shows that, as regards the former, the doubts of the past on the lawfulness of the agreement would arise, whereas in relation to the latter, the uncertainty at the point of qualification and discipline would arise. ... [edited by Author]