Law of Obligations - 2nd Semester

Class review - teacher Ana Isabel Neto

Case Study 1 driver Antonio company X, in office, was put letters to a station o
f CTT, and by the way because he was distracted, did not notice that Carla was g
oing through a crosswalk, and it hit her causing him injuries which led to 15 da
ys of hospitalization, with total incapacity for work. Carla now wants to know w
hat rights you should attend and whom the claim? In this case we have Antonio, t
he company's X driver who was in the exercise of their functions. Anthony is con
ducting on behalf of others, and that according to paragraph 1, at the end of Ar
ticle 487 of the first part of paragraph 3 of Article 503, it guilty unless he c
an rebut the presumption of guilt . What will not be able to do because I was di
stracted, not paying attention to Carla, when the accident occurred. So he could
rebut the presumption of guilt would have to depart from the requirements of Ar
ticle 483 thereof. And to rebut the presumption of the first part of paragraph 3
of Article 503, which would tell the court that one or more of the conditions o
f Article 483 paragraph are not met. On the contrary, appear to be satisfied, be
cause there is the practice of an objectively verifiable fact volunteer for the
human will, simply by being attentive to their driving, and that is also an unla
wful act of violating a personal right of others: the right to integrity Carla p
hysics. As for the link allocation of whether the agent for not knowing, based o
n the above, nothing contrary to its liability under Article 488 thereof, Anthon
y is attributable, and according to paragraph 2 of Article 487 thereof, resultin
g guilty, because we all know that an average driver (good father) knows that wi
thout proper circular, and due attention, can lead to a situation as described i
n the hypothesis (trampling Carla). Classifying the degree of guilt, it can be a
ssumed that the agent acted with a degree of guilt of conscious negligence, beca
use he knew that his conduct could result in some danger to users of that road.
Regarding damages, are verifiable two kinds: non-property, Article 496 thereof,
(injuries which led to 15 days of hospitalization, disrupting your personal life
) and property, Article 493 thereof, (15 days internment generating a total inca
pacity for work); Given the causal link between the event and the damage, in the
ory, we can consider that the inattention of a driver that will, by itself, be s
ufficient to cause the damage described. What, specifically, we have found a cau
sal link between the fact and the damage expressed in the hypothesis. It was the
n that Antonio, the above stated could not rebut the presumption of guilt that l
ies upon him under Article 503 / 3, and would be burdened with the obligation to
compensate. But because he is a commissioner (driver for hire or reward), this
brings us to the article 500 º. Therefore, if between the principal (company X)
and Commissioner (Anthony) whether there is a relationship of any sort, what ma
tters is that there must be a relationship in which the principal instructs the
commissioner of a particular task. For this reason, the principal may have to co
mpensate the damages that the Commissioner has caused, but if it is satisfied th
e three conditions of Article 500 of which translates into a strict liability re
gardless of fault, because the principal has enjoyed the benefits of having your
have a specific person and is therefore required to bear the damage it causes.
For that company X is liable pursuant to Article 500 of the relationship must ex
ist between the principal and the Commissioner, that the effect has occurred in
the performance of the commissioner and the commissioner falls on the obligation
to compensate. As exposes the case, Anthony had gone to CTT in office. And, as
mentioned above about him falls the blame, so giving it met the requirements of
Article 483 thereof, and apply the above in the first part of paragraph 3 of Art
icle 503, referring us then to Article 500 thereof, in particular Paragraphs 1 a
nd 2. Thus, it is understood the principal as required to compensate. However,
Antonio Albuquerque - 2400030 - Right 3. º Ano - Lusophone - 2006/07
1
Law of Obligations - 2nd Semester
Class review - teacher Ana Isabel Neto
although the principal on the compensation, has the right to return later in ful
l by the driver (see paragraph 3 of Article 500 thereof). Case Study 2 - Part 1
A B sold a painting for 40,000 Euros was agreed that the framework would be deli
vered and the price paid on May 20 for 15 hours.€The place of delivery of the t
able and pay the price? The parties are free to conclude contracts they want acc
ording to your will and to determine freely their content and, in principle, onl
y if they want to hire. But once the contract should be concluded promptly fulfi
lled. Principle of timeliness and completeness of the principle (contracts must
be completed step by step and in full). In this case the parties entered into a
contract of sale, which was bilateral commits both parties, ie, both are both cr
editors and debtors. The seller owes a creditor of the thing sold and the price
of it. While the buyer is liable to pay the price and turn creditor of the thing
purchased. In the agreement between the parties, they did not say anything, or
did not say what the place of supply. Thus, we have to help ourselves with gener
al principles, place of performance, in accordance with the provisions of paragr
aph 1 of Article 772 thereof, would be the domicile of the debtor, or paragraph
2 of that Article if the amendment home after the contract is concluded. Can the
n place the obligation under Article 772 and Article because it is a contract of
sale apply would be a special regime for these, ie, Article 885 thereof, which
states, in paragraph . 1 that "the price must be paid at the time and place of d
elivery of the thing sold." Therefore, considering the provisions in these two p
apers and had not been made in the contract or the stipulation of local delivery
, or pay the price, could occur simultaneously, in place of domicile of the debt
or. But since it is movable, as in paragraph 1 of Article 773 thereof, the oblig
ation must be fulfilled in the place where the thing was when the deal was concl
uded. Thus, both bonds will take place, based on this last rule in the place whe
re the thing was when the deal was concluded. As a complement can be said that t
he obligation is extinguished when the debtor held the provision to which it lin
ked (paragraph 1 of article 762 º) Case Study 2 - Part 2 The assumption that yo
u forgot and that commitment and not visited the site because, having come to de
stroy the table the next day for his oversight. What are the consequences were?
The day and time agreed for the performance of the obligation to play there and
the fulfillment of the obligation was possible, because the lender was there to
receive the picture, only the debtor forgot and did not attend, but he knew that
the delivery of the table was a must yours. Therefore, A was at fault (unconsci
ously) not to attend because it was possible to put a reminder, not even in the
refrigerator, not to miss the fulfillment of the obligation. Under the provision
s of paragraph 1 of Article 804 thereof, found themselves in the simple is oblig
ed to repair the damage caused to B. Thus, when the act came into arrears with g
uilt, because the provision was still possible, the lender was still available t
o perform the delivery, or had not yet occurred disinterest on the part of the c
reditor's benefit, as this had not occurred to perversion lives in the ultimate
failure. Except that during the delay by the debtor under the perished. And so t
he slow debtor bears the risk of loss or deterioration of the thing (Art. 807 º
)
Antonio Albuquerque - 2400030 - Right 3. º Ano - Lusophone - 2006/07
2
Law of Obligations - 2nd Semester
Class review - teacher Ana Isabel Neto
Case Study 2 - Part 3 Assume now that the picture died two days after the conclu
sion of the contract due the fault of the seller. What are the consequences? The
re is here a supervening impossibility of performance, not attributable to the d
ebtor - impossible without fault - and because there was a transfer of the domai
n object of the person of the debtor to the person of the creditor when the cont
ract of sale, then the decay or dieback of it borne by the buyer (Art. 796 / 1),
 so B was obliged to pay the price of the table although it had not been deliver
ed by A. Moreover, if for some reason, entered the debtor's assets in the table,
something that came to replace - which replaced the value of the table by virtu
e of having operated a safe - the creditor remains bound to pay the price, but m
ay claim 'Commodum' representation (Art. 794 º) ie what the debtor's assets rep
laces the object of the provision. In this case, on one hand the recipient recei
ves the insurance company and on the other side of the table to receive the pric
e paid by the creditor of the frame, then setting it would be unjust enrichment
of the debtor, so that the lender can claim the 'commodum' representation. It fo
llows further that in accordance with paragraph 1 of ArticleArticle 790 of this
leads to the extinction of the obligation impossible through no fault of the deb
tor.
Antonio Albuquerque - 2400030 - Right 3. º Ano - Lusophone - 2006/07
3