The Cassation Court, in ruling 3542, published 11\/2\/2021, reiterated case law – if there is no law requiring collective contracts be written based on the freedom of form principle – a unwritten company agreement is still valid. An agreement can be made verbally or by implication. Based on freedom of form and the literal interpretation that certain contracts need a specific form, this freedom must \u201cbe found for decisive acts (…), like mutual dissent (…) or unilateral withdrawal (or termination)\u201d.\u00a0 And, such freedom is established, the party objecting to unilateral withdrawal bears the burden of proof. Thus, the objecting party must demonstrate the existence of an effective verbal cancellation and the purely confirmatory nature of a later communication. According to the Court termination can also be demonstrated by declaratory proof. It also holds that there are no legal impediments to the possibility of testimonial proof because in a labour trial the civil code testimonial proof limits for contracts do not apply and because such limits do not refer to unilateral acts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Cassation Court, in ruling 3542, published 11\/2\/2021, reiterated case law – if there is no law requiring collective contracts be written based on the freedom of form principle – a unwritten company agreement is still valid. An agreement can be made verbally or by implication. Based on freedom of form and the literal interpretation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[177,190,208],"tags":[1730],"class_list":["post-21781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insights","category-publications","tag-relazioni-industriali-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n