Abstract EN:

The content of obligation varies. A result obligation implies that the content is very precise, the debitor must either execute or avoid a particular action. The content of a mean obligation is vague, the law or contract only specifies prudent, diligent behaviour. A group of elements make up the criteria required to distinguish a means obligation from a result obligation. Amongst these elements, the most important are: the will of the parties, the role the creditor plays in the execution of the obligation, the acceptance of risks and hazards. This new classification prooves itself useful. Its consequence concerns the definition of the act commited by the responsible party and its proof. In the case where the debitor assumes the result obligation concerning a specific action, his responsability is recognised as soon as the creditor prooves that he has not carried out his obligation. If he is subject to a mean obligation, and therefore merely to prudent behaviour, he is only responsable if prooven guilty. This is true when the two obligations are opposed. However, this is not always the case. Between these two cases, a scale of possibilities of requisite means and results coincide with a certain number of intermadiate obligations. The importance of mean obligation and result obligations accounts for their entry into judiciary practice. Several cases may be quoted to illustrate the application of this distinction. In order to highlight certain hypotheses, we distinguish between obligations of service and obligations for specific cases. In the first case, we note the examples of counsel and security and for the second, particular importance is given to the obligations of conservation and restitution.