NULIDAD DE CONTRATO POR VICIO EN EL CONSENTIMIENTO.- EL ERROR

03.01.2021

THE NULLITY OF THE WHOLE CONTRACT BY A FLAWED CONSENT.- A SERIOUS ERROR TO CONTRACT


 Respecto al error como vicio que invalida el consentimiento, procede decir, con carácter general, que no todos los errores que los contratantes pueden padecer comportan el mismo tratamiento jurídico.  

Puede afirmarse que hay un tipo de error que puede llamarse relevante, que permite a quien lo ha sufrido desligarse del contrato por medio de la acción de nulidad, que conlleva que el contrato se deja sin efecto, como si nunca hubiera desplegado su eficacia, pudiendo además en este caso reclamarse las indemnizaciones o restituciones que pudieran corresponder.

Por otro lado, existe otro tipo de error que supone que el contrato siga siendo válido y obliga a quien lo ha sufrido.

La cuestión radica en averiguar cuándo puede decirse que un error es relevante y cuándo, por el contrario, es irrelevante.

La relevancia del error sólo puede decidirse examinando el conflicto de intereses existente entre las partes, que entrañará la pretensión de una de ellas de desligarse y la pretensión de la otra de cumplirlo.

El Código Civil, de acuerdo con los términos estrictos del artículo 1.266 , solo contempla dos casos en que el error invalida el consentimiento contractual:

1º Cuando recae sobre la sustancia de la cosa que fuere objeto del contrato.

2º O sobre aquellas condiciones de la misma que principalmente hubiesen dado motivo a celebrarlo.

Recuerda la Sentencia del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Torrelavega de 19/05/2016 citando la STS 18 de abril 1978 que: "para que el error en el consentimiento invalide el contrato, conforme a lo dispuesto en el art. 1265 CC es indispensable que recaiga sobre la sustancia de la cosa que constituye su objeto o sobre aquellas condiciones de la misma que principalmente hubieren dado lugar a su celebración -art. 1261.1 y SS 16 Dic. 1923 y 27 Oct. 1964 - que derive de hechos desconocidos por el obligado voluntariamente a contratar - SS 1 Jul. 1915 y 26 Dic. 1964 - que no sea imputable a quien lo padece -SS 21 Oct. 1932 y 16 Dic. 1957 - y que exista un nexo causal entre el mismo y la finalidad que se pretendía en el negocio jurídico concertado - SS 14 Jul. 1943 y 25 May. 1963 -".

Y, en este sentido se ha dicho en la Doctrina que el error relevante como vicio de consentimiento consiste en la creencia inexacta respecto de algún dato que se ha de valorar como motivo principal del negocio, según y conforme de la conducta negocial. El dato respecto al que existe el error ha de ser estimado de importancia decisiva para la celebración del negocio para quien alegue el vicio y, además que, en sí mismo, pueda ser considerado base del negocio (condición sine qua non ), teniendo en cuenta lo que resulte expresa o tácitamente de la conducta de quien o quienes hayan dado lugar al negocio.

Entendido de esta manera no afecta necesariamente al objeto del contrato, puede referirse a cualquier tipo de circunstancias.

____________________________________________________________________

Regarding the error as a vice that invalidates the consent, it must be said, in general, that not all the errors that the contracting parties may suffer involve the same legal treatment.

It can be affirmed that there is a type of error that can be called relevant, which allows the person who has suffered it to disengage from the contract by means of the nullity action, which entails that the contract is left without effect, as if it had never displayed its effectiveness, being able to In addition, in this case, claim the compensation or restitution that may correspond.

On the other hand, there is another type of error that supposes that the contract continues to be valid and obliges whoever has suffered it.

The question is to find out when an error can be said to be relevant and when, on the contrary, it is irrelevant.

Regarding the error as a vice that invalidates the consent, it must be said, in general, that not all the errors that the contracting parties may suffer involve the same legal treatment.

It can be affirmed that there is a type of error that can be called relevant, which allows the person who has suffered it to be separated from the contract by means of the nullity action, which entails that the contract is left without effect, as if it had never been effective, being able to In addition, in this case, claim the compensation or restitution that may correspond.

On the other hand, there is another type of error that supposes that the contract continues to be valid and obliges whoever has suffered it.

The relevance of the error can only be decided by examining the conflict of interest existing between the parties, which will entail the claim of one of them to disengage and the claim of the other to comply.

The Civil Code, in accordance with the strict terms of article 1,266, only contemplates two cases in which the error invalidates the contractual consent:

1º When it falls on the substance of the thing that is the object of the contract.

2nd Or on those conditions of the same that mainly would have given reason to celebrate it.

Recalls the Sentence of the Court of First Instance of Torrelavega of 05/19/2016 citing the STS April 18, 1978 that: "for the error in the consent to invalidate the contract, in accordance with the provisions of art. 1265 CC it is essential that falls on the substance of the thing that constitutes its object or on those conditions of the same that mainly would have given rise to its celebration -art. 1261.1 and SS 16 Dec. 1923 and 27 Oct. 1964 - that derives from facts unknown by the obligor voluntarily to contract - SS 1 Jul. 1915 and 26 Dec. 1964 - that is not attributable to the person who suffers it -SS 21 Oct. 1932 and 16 Dec. 1957 - and that there is a causal link between it and the intended purpose in the arranged legal business - SS 14 Jul. 1943 and 25 May. 1963 - ".

And, in this sense, it has been said in the Doctrine that the relevant error as a vice of consent consists of the inaccurate belief regarding some data that must be valued as the main reason for the business, according to and in accordance with the business conduct. The data with respect to which the error exists must be considered of decisive importance for the conclusion of the business for whoever alleges the vice and, in addition, that, in itself, it can be considered the basis of the business (condition sine qua non), taking into account what results expressly or tacitly from the conduct of the person or persons who gave rise to the business.


Understood in this way, it does not necessarily affect the object of the contract, it can refer to any type of circumstances.