Abstract
The obligation of result is a fundamental concept of civil law. Built on doctrinal bases its position in law is areality. Whose main function is to regulate the relationship between a creditor and a debtor, its use has long been the exclusivity of private law. Yet its appearance in administrative law allowed to consider the public entity as debtor.The obligation of result of the Administration, is divided into two categories: the legal obligation and contractual obligation. This is a fundamental legal concept which states that "the question of the existence of two autonomous loans between separate legal orders and a priori independent of the debate on the existence of a certain unity of law, a jus universarum. Independent of its theoretical conceptualization, the obligation of result is a judicial instrument, the legislative character was forged by the courts. This demonstrates use of the aims pursued by the Administration to meet different objectives of public action. These goals differ depending on the qualifications that can be learned from the obligation.The contractual nature of the obligation has effects limited only to the sphere of contract. It's an interesting legal means allowing the Administration to continue its quest for performance. The legal obligation has a singular dimension, as it requires the Administration and comes confer creditors of the obligation genuine rights. The temptation to create a hierarchy between these obligations, the result would be to confirm the supremacy of a legal obligation on the contractual obligation of result. Especially, that the legal requirement appears more restrictive as it arises in a report that is not agreed but imposed on the public entity. This approach is not possible as the concept remains the same in both contexts. The difference therefore atttrait its training conditions. The obligation remains the same link engaging the responsibility of the public person in breach of the determined result.