Object and Cause
Explanation
The law requires the existence of an object (l'objet) and a cause (la cause) for the validity of contracts. If either is absent or vitiated by a defect, the contract is affected in its existence and validity.
Regarding the object, it must exist, and the law allows the object to be a future thing. However, dealing in an unvested inheritance is strictly prohibited. Any contract on a future inheritance is considered absolutely void, even if the legator agrees to it. The object must also be sufficiently determined, possible, and lawful.
As for the cause, an obligation that lacks a cause, or is built on an incorrect or unlawful cause, is deemed non-existent. This also leads to the contract being considered non-existent, and whoever paid something based on it has the right to recover it.
The law distinguishes between an illusory cause and an apparent cause. The cause is incorrect if a person commits based on an illusion they mistakenly believed to exist. However, if the cause mentioned in the contract is merely apparent, the contract is not automatically voided, but remains valid if it is proven that the true cause of the obligation is a lawful cause.
Official legal articles
Think deeper
How does the law distinguish between an illusory cause that voids the contract and an apparent cause that may keep the contract valid based on the text?
Flashcards
Can the object of a contract be a future thing?
Yes, the object can be a future thing, with the exception of an unvested inheritance.
What is the ruling on a contract regarding an unvested inheritance with the consent of the legator?
The act is absolutely void.
What conditions does the law impose on the object of a contract for its validity?
The object must be sufficiently determined, possible, and lawful (Article 189).
What is the fate of an obligation that has no cause or whose cause is unlawful?
It is deemed non-existent, leading to the contract being considered non-existent, and what was paid can be recovered.
When is the cause of a contractual obligation considered incorrect in the eyes of the law?
The cause is incorrect if a party commits due to an illusory cause mistakenly believed to exist (Article 197).
Is the contract always void if the cause mentioned in it is merely apparent?
No, the contract remains valid if the true cause of the obligation is lawful.
Practice questions
A person sold a car they will manufacture next year. Is this contract valid in terms of its object?
The law allows the object of the contract to be a future thing (Article 188).
A person agreed with another to sell their share of the inheritance from their father who is still alive, and the father agreed. What is the ruling on this agreement?
No contract may be established on an unvested inheritance even if the legator consents. This act is considered absolutely void (Article 188).
What is the legal effect of paying a sum of money based on a contract whose cause is unlawful?
A contract whose cause is unlawful is legally considered non-existent. What was paid under it can be recovered (Article 196).
A person committed to paying compensation to another, mistakenly believing they had broken their car, then it turned out someone else was the perpetrator. What is the status of this obligation?
The cause is considered incorrect if a party commits to a matter based on an illusory cause. This happens when they mistakenly believe it exists (Article 197).
A contract was concluded mentioning an apparent cause to hide the true cause. If the true cause is lawful, what is the fate of the contract?
An apparent cause does not vitiate the contract by itself. The contract remains valid and effective if the true cause is lawful (Article 197).
Case problems
Sami agreed with Rami to buy the apple crop that Rami's orchard will produce in the coming season. In the same contract, Sami bought from Rami his share in the family home that Rami will inherit from his sick uncle, noting that the uncle agreed to this sale.
Model answer
Regarding the upcoming apple crop, the contract is valid because the law allows future objects (Article 188).
As for the purchase of the inheritance share, the contract is considered absolutely void and ineffective.
The law expressly prohibits waiving an unvested inheritance or establishing any contract on it (Article 188).
This strict legal prohibition applies even if the legator consents to this disposition.
Self-grading rubric
Layla paid $5000 to a company to perform work that later turned out to be legally unlawful. Layla demanded the recovery of her money, but the company refused on the pretext that the contract had been signed and payment had been made.
Model answer
Layla has the right to recover her money paid to the company because the work is unlawful.
An obligation with an unlawful cause is deemed non-existent, and the contract is considered non-existent (Article 196).
The law expressly provides that what was paid in this void case can be recovered.
Therefore, the company's refusal to return the money is not based on any valid legal foundation.