Court held that a debtor's continuous claim of performance fulfillment requires the act to have a liberating effect.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's objection regarding the fulfillment of an obligation because the alleged performance lacked a liberating effect. The plaintiff argued that the obligation was satisfied, but the defendant contended that the specific act performed did not legally extinguish the debt. The court ruled that merely claiming fulfillment is insufficient; the act must objectively possess a liberating effect to validly discharge the obligation.