Continued...
Despite all the benefits that come with direct action in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama in your room civilian is disused and the employment information of this article solidifies a claim relevant to your deployment.
Comparative law also recognizes the direct action. In the same sense as the Spanish Civil Code, understood as the expansion of coverage of credit in favor of the subcontractor and is referred to in the article 1597 available:
“Those who put their work and materials in a work set alzadamente by the contractor, have no action against the owner of her until the amount owed to him when he makes the claim”.
This court has understood the direct action as imperfect as it will be inoponibles the direct debtor, i.e., the contractor. The acts of disposition that the contractor has made subsequent to the claim made by the subcontractor. Spanish literature refers to a stagecoach minimum of the creditor, subcontractor, as to require or enforce the payment and, as a consequence of placing the principal debtor in mora, taking into account that this action may be exercised judicially or extrajudicially.
The Spanish law imposes an additional requirement that it has provided clearance for the main contractor may in its own name and for its own account, but in the interest of him and of the owner of the work, subcontract the performance of all or part of the main work.
The French Civil Code in article 1798 refers to:
“masons, carpenters, and other workers who have been employed in the construction of a building or other works carried out in the company, have no action against him for which you have executed the works, but until the amount owed to the contractor when a claim is filed.”
According to Federico A. Rodriguez this action does not have a history in the projects presented by Pothier and Domat, is the product of the legislation revolutionary. It also endorsed this action in the Labour Code and the Social Prevention in French in its article 47.
However, the jurisprudence of the French courts, has denied any direct action. It is approved only in cases where the owner or purchaser to assume the payment of the debits to the subcontractor, that is to say, in virtue of an express stipulation in favor of a third party, based on the speculation of who executed the work on its own. Position jurisprudence which was corrected by the Decree 73-329 197 relating to public works and the Law 75-1334 of 1975 relating to public works and private, in that it supports the direct action on the contract of work.
The Italian Civil Code in article 1676, also provides for direct action that has who is under the dependence of the contractor against the principal. The Italian case law recognizes this action as a substitute of a debtor for another, that is to say, of the contractor by the owner of the work. The doctrine Italian states that do not recognize any right in rem, but that is a privilege that has the sub-contractor as they do not impose the prior exclusion of property of the contractor avoids the competition with other creditors.
In the Civil Code colombian recognizes the action as not direct but subsidiary part of the contract that points to the production of a work material. This action is configured only for the construction, remodeling, reconstruction, partial or any work indisp
assembly for the conservation of a building, understood as a building which serves to room or other use analog. The regulation is provided as well:
“art. 2060. Construction of buildings by price alone. The contracts for construction of buildings, concluded with an employer who does all the work for a single price point, is clamped in addition to the following rules: (...)5. If the artisans or laborers employed in the construction of the building have contracted with the owner directly by their respective pay, you will look at as independent contractors, and will have direct action against the owner; but if you have a contract with the employer, they will not take action against the owner, but secondarily and to concurrency of what he could for the entrepreneur”
The difference of this action in the colombian Law is focused on the subsidiarity means that first I have to run the payment to the contractor and to the refusal of this can I go to the owner of the work; and it is still limited means that only requires the owner what they are owed by reason of the subcontract, until concurrence of the owner can be debiting the one for the sake of the main contract (contract of work).
Some authors colombians believe that the Civil Code was amended by the Code on the Substantive Work in its article 34, because the liability becomes solidarity whether the workers are employed directly with the employer or with the owner of the work. In consequence can the workers start action directly against one or the other, or against both. Situation is nuanced by other doctrinantes where it is stated that this amendment is applicable only to the rights of the workers, but that subsection 5° also includes the craftsmen or businessmen who have contracted with the main contractor, who would be favored with the action subsidiary and limited, leaving intact despite the introduction of the rule of Code on the Substantive Work of colombian.
