|
|
After years of uncertainty, the Superior Court of Justice recently standardized discussions regarding the deadline for contractual discussion, pacifying the ten-year statute of limitations for contracts.
The pacifying decision was handed down by the 2nd Section of the STJ, in Motion for Divergence 1,280,825, which ended up ending the existing controversy between the two Private Law classes of the STJ. The discussions and controversies began with the entry into force of the 2002 Civil Code, which brought apparently conflicting and overlapping rules for the limitation periods for contractual and extra-contractual obligations.
The purpose of the institution of prescription is to provide certainty to legal relationships, seeking, in short, stability. However, although the legislation expressly recognizes the application of the three-year statute of limitations (three-year statute of limitations) to claims based on non-contractual liability, uncertainty hovered, until then, regarding reparatory claims based on contractual breach.
In this context, since the entry into force of the 2002 Civil Code, the STJ has ruled numerous times on the aforementioned controversy with the aim of providing a uniform interpretation regarding the applicability of the three-year (article 206, paragraph 3) or ten-year (article 205) prescription.
The decision handed down by the 2nd Section of the STJ, reported by Minister Nancy Andrighi in the ruling in question, however, is based on practically a decade of jurisprudence established in order to apply the ten-year period to contractual liability.
For a better understanding of the B2B Lead pacified term, it must be taken into consideration that, for the purposes of the application of the statute of limitations, the term “civil reparation”, contained in paragraph 3 of article 206 of the Civil Code, does not cover the composition of any and all negative consequence, patrimonial or extra-patrimonial, of non-compliance with a legal duty, but only the harmful consequences, of the unlawful act or conduct in the strictest sense and, therefore, only for cases of non-contractual civil liability.
This is because, if we analyze the hypotheses in which the 2002 Civil Code refers to contractual breach, there is no mention of the expression “civil reparation”. Therefore, it is easy to understand that the term “civil reparation”, which, until then, had been serving as the basis for applying the three-year period provided for in item V, paragraph 3 of article 206 of the Civil Code, was used by the legislator only when he intended refer to non-contractual liability.
In the event of contractual default, the creditor is allowed to demand from the debtor the exact fulfillment of what was agreed. In other words, in the event of definitive default, the creditor can choose between execution for the equivalent or, subject to the necessary assumptions, the resolution of the contractual legal relationship, and can also, in both cases, request payment of losses and damages that may be caused. by the debtor.
In compliance with the logic, coherence and integrity of civil legislation, it is necessary for the creditor to be subject to the same deadline to exercise the three claims that the law makes available to protest against default.
This is because there would be no logic in determining different deadlines for the creditor to (i) demand compliance with the performance and (ii) another to claim payment of losses and damages for non-compliance with the same instrument.
In this sense, article 205 of the Civil Code, by providing for a ten-year statute of limitations in general, maintains the logical and systematic integrity of civil legislation.
|
|
發表於 11:30:22