Rivista del Diritto Commerciale e del diritto generale delle Obbligazioni

Abstract: From Vincenzo Roppo’s perspective, the asymmetric bargaining power surrounding both B2B and B2C relations disavows the assumption of parity and equality between parties. In his view, courts should be entitled to amend agreements for the purpose of redressing contractual balance. This neo-systematic approach is drawn from the correlation of two different disciplines and provides that courts should have jurisdiction to vary the terms of an agreement whenever consumer protection and/or abuse of economic-dependence concerns come into play. However, with respect to B2B relationships, courts’ power should aim at enforcing competition law principles. On the other hand, in B2C relationships, courts may exercise their powers to the extent needed to achieve consumer-protection purposes. A number of insights can be found in this respect in light of two different examples: billing at 28 days and loan agreements with negative Euribor rates.

Sommario: 1. Una metafora. – 2. I postulati della teoria del contratto. – 3. Il contratto asimmetrico. – 4. Potere e interessi nella disciplina contrattuale. – 5. Debolezza contrattuale, contratti del consumatore e contratti tra imprese. – 6. Gli interessi rilevanti e le diverse prospettive assiologiche. – 7. Il diritto della concorrenza e il contratto. – 8. I contratti del consumatore. – 9. Una declinazione contenutistica della debolezza. – 10. Tutela del consumatore ed effetti sul mercato. – 11. Autonomia privata e controllo sul contenuto del contratto. – 12. L’Euribor negativo. – 13. La fatturazione a 28 giorni dei servizi di comunicazione elettronica. – 14. Conclusioni.

Keywords: Contract Law — Contractual balance — Consumer Protection — Court’s Powers.