Assignment to the technician and exception of non-compliance of the condominium
According to Article 1460 of the Civil Code, in contracts with reciprocal performance, each of the contracting parties may refuse to fulfill his obligation if the other does not fulfill or does not offer to fulfill his own at the same time, unless different terms for fulfillment have been established by the parties or result from the nature of the contract. However, execution cannot be refused if, having regard to the circumstances, the refusal is contrary to good faith.
If the defendant debtor raises the objection of non-compliance pursuant to art. 1460 of the Civil Code, the acting creditor will in any case have the burden of demonstrating his own fulfillment, or the fact that the obligation has not yet expired (Cass. Civ., section I, 18/04/2025, n. 10253). In any case, to understand whether the exception of non-compliance has been raised correctly, the judge must verify whether the behavior of the party who did not perform actually affected the balance of the contractual relationship.
The assessment must be made concretely, comparing the seriousness of the respective breaches and considering the objective situation, not the subjective perception of the parties (Cass. Civ., section III, 18/02/20205, n. 4134).
In light of the principles mentioned, the Court of L’Aquila specified that, when the condominium disputes the payment by invoking the non-fulfilment of the professional, it is necessary to verify whether, at the time of filing the appeal, the technician had actually fulfilled all the preliminary obligations established by law or by the contract.
In essence, it is necessary to ascertain whether the professional has provided the condominium with all the necessary documentation to allow it to proceed with the payment; only in this case can the condominium be considered in default. The Court of L’Aquila deemed the exception of non-compliance raised by the condominium against the engineer in charge to be well founded, since the professional had not demonstrated that he had sent, before the appeal, the necessary documentation to allow the payment of the compensation, documentation also essential for the purposes of the liquidation of public funds (Trib. L’Aquila 26 November 2025, n. 735).
Compensation for the technician and agreement unfavorable to the condominium in the assignment contract
Especially during the Superbonus period, many condominium owners, in order to quickly access tax breaks and start work, ended up accepting particularly onerous contractual clauses. Among these, agreements are not uncommon that provide for the payment of the fee for the design phase even if the works do not proceed towards execution.
Precisely the validity of these clauses, together with the verification of the correctness of the activity carried out by the professional and the validity of the related economic claim, was at the center of a recent decision of the Court of Milan (sentence no. 7439 of 06/10/2025). The disputed clause established a compensation of €12,000 for the design phase, even if the condominium had decided not to proceed with the execution of the works. The Court found this clause valid. According to the Milanese judge, it is therefore neither a manifestly excessive penalty nor a condition precedent left to the sole will of the professional.
The condominium highlighted that the clause could have limited the consumer’s actions in the event of non-compliance by the professional. But, according to the art. 2697 cc, whoever requests compensation must prove his right, while whoever disputes it must demonstrate extinctive or modifying facts. In the concrete case, the professional produced the contract and the documentation of the activities carried out, and respected the established terms.
The condominium, however, did not provide any proof of the technician’s non-compliance: there is no formal notice, nor elements demonstrating delays or errors. For this reason the complaint was deemed unfounded.
As for the condominium owners’ complaint regarding the failure to refer to the professional rates, the judge recalled that the compensation can be freely determined by the parties (art. 2233 of the civil code) and, once set in the contract, cannot be modified by the judge.
General meeting resolution and assignment to the technician
A recent decision by the Court of Naples highlighted that if the technician cannot prove the existence of a task conferred by the condominium he cannot claim compensation. The case examined began when a condominium discussed the need to carry out restoration work on the facade, limiting itself to deciding that a metric bill would be presented at the next meeting to evaluate the interventions. No professional name was indicated, nor was a formal assignment given.
At the next meeting, the assembly took note of the existence of a metric calculation drawn up by an architect and set a maximum amount of €900 for the possible assignment. However, that resolution was annulled in self-defense due to a defect in the convocation. In fact, therefore, there remained no valid act that attributed a task to the technician.
Despite this, the professional, believing he had carried out work requested by the condominium, issued an invoice and obtained an injunction. The condominium objected, arguing that there was no contract or mandate.
The judge of first instance upheld the opposition and the Court, on appeal, confirmed the decision. The motivation is linear: the technician did prepare the metric calculation, but did not prove the existence of an assignment. It is not enough to have carried out a useful activity; an agreement is needed, a contractual title that justifies the payment request (Naples Court of 27 January 2026, n. 1241).
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone, subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
