1) Italian Supreme Court: confirmatory deposit (caparra confirmatoria) is not subject to the power of reduction under Art. 1384 of the Civil Code

On 2 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court, by judgment No. 8217/2026, ruled on the subject of the confirmatory deposit (caparra confirmatoria), clarifying its nature, function and limits, with particular regard to the possibility of judicial intervention as to its amount.

The Court reaffirmed that the confirmatory deposit, governed by Art. 1385 of the Civil Code, fulfils a function of partial advance payment of the price and lump-sum predetermination of damages in the event of non-performance, operating bilaterally between the parties. In this perspective, it was excluded that it is subject to the equitable reduction power provided for the penalty clause by Art. 1384 of the Civil Code, given the different nature and function of the two institutes. From a quantitative standpoint, the Supreme Court noted that the confirmatory deposit must remain within the limit of the amount of the principal obligation to which it is ancillary: where such threshold is exceeded, the clause may be deemed invalid, as a consequence of the loss of the typical function of the confirmatory deposit and, accordingly, of its justification.

To access the decision, click here.

2) Italian Supreme Court: in real estate leasing, the clause conditioning the restitution to the lessee of the proceeds of the sale of the asset upon a disposal following the lessor’s “unchallengeable negotiations” (insindacabili trattative) is not a purely potestative condition

On 2 April 2026, the Supreme Court ruled, by Decision No. 8294/2026, on the subject of real estate leasing (leasing immobiliare), clarifying the validity of the clause subordinating the restitution to the lessee of the proceeds of the sale of the asset subject to the financing lease agreement to the disposal following “unchallengeable negotiations” by the lessor.

The Supreme Court excludes the nullity of the clause pursuant to Art. 1355 of the Civil Code, holding that it does not constitute a purely potestative condition, but rather a mixed condition, since the event made the subject of the condition, namely the sale of the asset, does not depend exclusively on the will of the lessor, but also on “an external element, to be identified in the will of the third-party purchaser”.

In that regard, the Decision further specifies that it is not possible to invoke the duty to act in good faith during the pendency of the condition under Art. 1358 of the Civil Code, since such duty cannot “extend so far as to require the lessor to dispose of the asset on economic terms that are in any event inequitable and disadvantageous to it”. The Supreme Court reaffirms, however, that the lessor’s duty to act with diligence so as not to sell the returned asset at a “derisory price” (prezzo vile) remains unaffected.

To access the decision, click here.