Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem:
http://dspace.udla.edu.ec/handle/33000/11797| Tipo de material : | bachelorThesis |
| Título : | El problema inherente al derecho de regreso en el pago del tercero realizado en contra de la prohibición del deudor principal |
| Autor : | Quirola Racines, Juan Sebastián |
| Tutor : | Prado Rodríguez, Juan Carlos |
| Palabras clave : | DERECHO CIVIL;DERECHOS PERSONALES;OBLIGACIONES;SUJETOS OBLIGADOS;DEUDOR;DEUDOR PRINCIPAL |
| Fecha de publicación : | 2019 |
| Editorial : | Quito: Universidad de las Américas, 2019 |
| Citación : | Quirola Racines, J. S. (2019). El problema inherente al derecho de regreso en el pago del tercero realizado en contra de la prohibición del deudor principal (Tesis de pregrado). Universidad de las Américas, Quito. |
| Resumen : | La presente investigación aborda el problema inherente al derecho de regreso que surge en consecuencia del pago de la deuda ajena realizado por un tercero “solvens” no interesado y en contra de la expresa voluntad del deudor principal... |
| Descripción : | The present investigation addresses the problem inherent in the right of return that arises as a result of the payment of the foreign debt made by a third party (solvens) not interested and against the express will of the principal debtor. In this regard, to determine the right of return and the consequent restitution action in favor of the solvent, we witness a contradiction in the regulations of the Ecuadorian Civil Code between articles 1590 and 2191, since the former excludes the right of return in favor of the third solvent, leaving open only the possibility of resorting to the conventional subrogation that, however, would depend exclusively on the will of the creditor and on the other hand, article 2191 admits the return in favor of the solvens provided that the solutory intervention has led to utility for the principal debtor, which is evident when the obligation to be paid by the latter is extinguished. In this sense, the first chapter analyzes the connotations that are collected from article 1588 C.c. on the forms of payment by a third party admitted in the Ecuadorian legal system. While, in the second chapter, in addition to establishing the historical foundations that are at the base of the contradiction in the Civil Code of Bello, the regulations regarding the right to return to such assumption are studied and a legal comparison is made on the same issue in the legal experiences of Spain and Argentina. Finally, the third chapter raises the possible solutions that arise on the underlying problem, including the way to maintain the balance (aequitas) between the parties of the obligation through the enrichment or rem in verse action. |
| URI : | http://dspace.udla.edu.ec/handle/33000/11797 |
| Aparece en las colecciones: | Derecho |
Ficheros en este ítem:
| Fichero | Descripción | Tamaño | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDLA-EC-TAB-2019-17.pdf | 1,02 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizar/Abrir |
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons
