In this interpretive judgment the Plenary Session has decreed, in particular:

- that legal consequences of both dissolution and lawful refusal to perform the contract are identical. Accordingly, the legal opinions formulated in the present judgment as regards the  consequences of dissolution of contract are applicable to cases of the lawful refusal to perform it;

- that it is necessary to distinguish between those duties of the parties which relate directly to the object of the contract (they terminate at the moment of its dissolution) and those ones which “survive” its dissolution (obligations under a warranty with regard to goods sold, a choice-of-law agreement and the like);

- that the returning by the parties to each other of the benefits received under a transaction which has not been fully performed must be equivalent, that is, the settlement between parties must be such that eventually the consideration of one party be equivalent to consideration of the other;

- how exactly the returning by the parties of the benefits received under contract must  proceed if its object (the good sold etc.) proves to be lost by the moment of settlement;

- that a reasoned refusal from a registered contract implies the necessity to submit to the registering authority the applications from all the parties, whereas a refusal without giving reasons (if such refusal is admissible) requires the application of the respective party only.