The relative mutability, virus that attacks the body of the criminal clause. Does the mutability of the criminal clause cause its denaturation?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18259/iet.2019005Keywords:
Criminal clause, breach, mutability, denaturation, evidence, damages and damagesAbstract
Article 1346 of the Civil Code gives the judge the possibility to reduce the sentence. Isn’t this a virus that attacks the body of the penal clause? In other words, what would be the point of agreeing on a penalty if, once the breach is noticed, the parties are involved in a cumbersome process in which they would have to show that the damages derived from the breach are indeed greater or less than the amount of the penal clause?
References
Giampieri, A. (1999). La clausola penale e la caparra. I contratti in generali. III. Turín.
Kemelmajer, A. (1981).La cláusula penal. Su régimen jurídico en el derecho civil, comercial, laboral, administrativo, tributario, internacional y procesal. Buenos Aires: Depalma.
Llambías, J. (1983). Tratado de derecho civil. Obligaciones. Buenos Aires: Abeledo Perrot.
Mazzarese, S. (1999). Clausola penale Artt. 1382-1384. Milán: Giuffrè.
Nieva, J. (2010). La valoración de la prueba. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Osterling, F. y Castillo, M. (2008). Compendio de derecho de las obligaciones. Lima: Palestra.
Talavera, A. (2016). Regulando la intolerancia ante los cumplimientos contractuales. Ius et veritas. Lima: PUCP.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ius et Tribunalis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
