Intorno alla responsabilità precontrattuale, al dolo incidente e a una recente sentenza giusta ma erroneamente motivata

Abstract

The essay analyzes the issues of pre-contractual liability and incident fraud, moving by the Corte di Cassazione judgment in the case CIR vs Fininvest. The author believes that the judgment is correct in the decision, but wrong in the reasoning because of the reference to the torts. The correct approach would have been that which refers to the pre-contractual liability, with regard to which the author argues for the qualification as a form of contractual liability. In particular, the unfair conduct of Fininvest represents an incident fraud, which is the only hypothesis of pre-contractual liability characterized by damages which approach to the expectation interest.