Bibliographic citations
Espejo, S., (2022). Por una tutela específica de las obligaciones de hacer infungibles y de no hacer: Un estudio sobre la evolución histórica y comparada del nemo ad factum praecise cogi potest y su vigencia en el Código Civil peruano de 1984 [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/23360
Espejo, S., Por una tutela específica de las obligaciones de hacer infungibles y de no hacer: Un estudio sobre la evolución histórica y comparada del nemo ad factum praecise cogi potest y su vigencia en el Código Civil peruano de 1984 []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/23360
@misc{renati/533315,
title = "Por una tutela específica de las obligaciones de hacer infungibles y de no hacer: Un estudio sobre la evolución histórica y comparada del nemo ad factum praecise cogi potest y su vigencia en el Código Civil peruano de 1984",
author = "Espejo Macedo, Stefan Anthony",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2022"
}
The nemo ad factum praecise cogi potest is and old adage in legal history with a medieval origin, and with a wide influence on the XVIIIth Century French Private Law and also the jurisprudence after the birth of the Civile Code of 1804. That adage was understood, originally, as the impossibility to enforce obligations to do and not to do (with the consequent remedy of compensation for damages) and the proscription of the use of violence in the enforcement (that prohibited, originally, the use of enforcement means on the body of the person and indirect enforcement or coercive means such as astreintes), and has had a historical impact section 1150.1 and 1158.1 of the Peruvian Civil Code 3 of 1984, being that the Argentinian Civil Code of 1871 and Brazilian Civil Code of 1916 determined its direct antecedent (that is, the section 1186 of the Peruvian Civil Code of 1936). The present work, on the basis of a historical analysis and a study of the current legal context in French law and other legal systems, and the main European Contract Models, intends to demonstrate that adage nemo ad factum has lost its original meaning, neither being incompatible with the specific performance of obligations to do and not to do nor the astreintes. Together with that, on the basis of the awareness that just a monetary protection is not enough to get an appropriate performance of the rights in Private Law, and the circular relation between Private Law and Procedural Law, it is sought to deconstruct the understanding of a majority of the Peruvian Private Law jurisprudence about sections 1150.1 and 1158.1, searching for a reinterpretation that may be able to reach an specific performance of the obligations to do and not do as a general rule. Furthermore, it is intended to rule out the prohibition of the use of astreintes as a case of violence that would be covered by the nemo ad factum praecise cogi potest. Finally, it is proposed four interpretative meanings to understand the legal term “enforcement” in sections 1150.1 and 1158.1, and, as a result of this, it will be proposed the most appropriate meaning, that is, that the remedy for personal obligations to do and no to do’s breach is indeed the specific performance as a general rule and, also, the prohibition of violence through direct enforcement means on the person of the debtor in the enforcement, that understood as a doctrinal and dogmatic category. Therefore, it would be a hybrid legal rule that contains elements of Private Law and Procedural Law.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License