Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador.

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis analyzes the standards of legal reasoning applied in a civil court ruling regarding a claim for damages. The research centers on the absence of a written contract establishing an obligation between the parties; the methodology employed was used to evaluate whether the ruling met the required standards of legal reasoning and complied with Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, as well as to determine if the decision was duly substantiated. The study examined the factual and legal grounds of the ruling and assessed the potential existence of flaws in the reasoning, ultimately concluding that the decision did not suffer from defects such as insufficiency, incoherence, inconsistency, or incomprehensibility. However, a regulatory gap was identified regarding the lack of rules governing verbal contracts a situation that leaves property owners vulnerable when affected by professional malpractice. In light of these findings, the study offers recommendations concerning preventive contractual practices for obligations arising from verbal contracts for the construction of private homes.