Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Brazil

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 36))

  • 372 Accesses

Abstract

Freedom of contract lies among the fundamental principles of the economic order established by the 1988 Brazilian Constitution. Even though the Brazilian legal system protects free-market institutions, there are important hypotheses of legislative, regulatory and judicial price controls, which should be taken into account in order to understand the dynamics of freedom of contract. The Brazilian legal system contains multiple and disperse hypotheses of direct price control, whether on primary price terms or ancillary price terms, and this diversity makes the complete coverage of these cases an almost impossible task. However, this report shall try to systematize the most common or most important price control of standard contract terms in Brazilian Law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Tepedino (2012), pp. 15–21.

  2. 2.

    The highly sensitive matter regarding worker’s protection will not be addressed in this report, since this issue has many peculiarities and also because of a recent reform on Labor Law that deeply hampered principles regarding the protection of vulnerable parties.

  3. 3.

    Art 170 of the Constitution.

  4. 4.

    Grau (1998), pp. 56–57.

  5. 5.

    Lôbo (2002), p. 16.

  6. 6.

    Art 22 of the Constitution.

  7. 7.

    That’s why the hereby adopted reference to B2B contracts does not necessarily show the complexity of the Brazilian Contract Law, since beyond contracts between firms and contracts involving consumers, there may be contracts celebrated between ‘civil’ parties, none of which consisting of a firm. This distinction still exists because, in spite of the 2002 Civil Code’s effort to unify commercial and civil obligations, commercial obligations actually did not receive the needed attention. Essential peculiarities of commercial obligations were ignored to a great extent, such as the application of the notion of lesion due to a party’s inexperience, may make sense if the case involves civil obligations, but may be a complete disaster on commercial relations, whereby experience is a competitive factor to be incentivized.

  8. 8.

    Tepedino (2006), p. 251.

  9. 9.

    Konder (2017), pp. 43–47.

  10. 10.

    See Martins-Costa (2015).

  11. 11.

    Frazão (2013), pp. 289–292.

  12. 12.

    Konder (2017), pp. 41–42. By excessive onerousness, we describe the situation in which the original balance of the contract is altered substantially by a future fact which was unpredictable or very hard to be predicted at the time of the agreement.

  13. 13.

    Frazão (2011), pp. 105–109.

  14. 14.

    Art 927 of the CC.

  15. 15.

    Schreiber (2016), pp. 21–31 sustains, however, that the right to renegociate should be observed before the annulment of the contract in some circumstances, such as the excessive onerousness.

  16. 16.

    Art 182 of the CC.

  17. 17.

    Art 184 of the CC.

  18. 18.

    Art 157 of the CC.

  19. 19.

    See note 36 below.

  20. 20.

    Art 478 of the CC.

  21. 21.

    Art 479 of the CC.

  22. 22.

    Regarding Civil Law, which does not presume the vulnerability of one of the parties, the Brazilian Council of Federal Justice (CJF) periodically organizes events known as ‘Civil Law Journeys’ (Jornadas de Direito Civil), when legal scholars and members of the Judiciary assemble for the formulation of doctrinal statements of legal interpretation in order to enlighten the application of the law. Statement 176 from the Third Journey provides that, taking into account the principle of the contract preservation, excessive burden arising from unpredictable events should, if it is possible, lead to judicial review of contract terms, instead of contract termination, as established by the CC Art 478 of the CC.

  23. 23.

    Art 6 of the CDC.

  24. 24.

    Art 51 of the CDC.

  25. 25.

    International Competition Network (2016), p. 33.

  26. 26.

    CADE AC 08700.004860/2016-11 (2016), CADE AC 08700.001020/2014-26 (2017). In a recent case involving a merger between the Brazilian stock market and futures operator (BM&FBOVESPA) and the entity responsible for the custody and liquidation of securities (CETIP), Commissioner Gilvandro Araújo stated that ‘direct price interference may be costly for the State, since this measure demands much information in order to mimic a mechanism capable of representing people’s freedom in determining its desires, at the same time taking into account subjective remarks about socially fair exchange levels’. See CADE AC 08700.004860/2016-11 (2017).

  27. 27.

    Frazão (2011), p. 55.

  28. 28.

    Art 927 of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code.

  29. 29.

    STJ REsp 1195642/RJ (2012), STJ REsp 1010834/GO (2010).

  30. 30.

    STJ REsp 1413818/DF (2014), STJ REsp 1158815/RJ (2012).

  31. 31.

    STJ REsp 1117137/RS (2010).

  32. 32.

    STJ REsp 1352419/SP (2014).

  33. 33.

    STJ AgRg REsp 975954/GO, STJ REsp 936741/GO (2011).

  34. 34.

    STJ REsp 1321614/SP (2015), TJSP 91048650920098260000 (2013).

  35. 35.

    STJ REsp 1155200/DF (2011), TJSP Ap cív. 00725304520138260002 (2017), TJDFT Ap cív. 20160110608154 (2016), TJMS Ap cív. 00134830920088120002 (2014).

  36. 36.

    TJSC Ap cív. 20120876028 (2015).

  37. 37.

    TJSP Ap. cív. 10052936620168260100 (2017), STJ REsp 1046418/RJ (2013).

  38. 38.

    See STJ, p. 286, which states that the renegotiation of banking contracts does not block the possibility of review of invalid clauses.

  39. 39.

    STJ AgInt REsp 1224012/SP (2016), STJ AgRg Ag 1329173/SP (2011), STJ AgRg REsp 761275/DF (2009), STJ AgRg AgRg Ag 941737/MG (2007), STJ AgRg REsp 850739/RS (2007), AgRg EDcl REsp 789354/MT (2006), STJ REsp 455855/RS (2006).

  40. 40.

    Rental agreements may represent the most common hypothesis for the judicial review of price terms in Brazilian Law, since the national ‘Rental Act’ (Lei 8245/1991) contains a special procedure for the rental price review, to be filed by either party, through which the price may be set according to current market standards. Nevertheless, it is not possible to generalize rental agreements as standard form contracts (even though they may be so), hence Brazilian case law on this subject will not be hereby commented.

  41. 41.

    STF ADI 2591 (2006).

  42. 42.

    STJ REsp 135151/RJ (1997), STJ REsp 25801/SP (1995), STJ REsp 55539/RJ (1995).

  43. 43.

    STJ REsp 318351/SP (2002), STJ REsp 62434/SP (1997), STJ REsp 38190/SP (1994), STJ REsp 23741/SP (1992), STJ REsp 8549/SP (1991), STJ REsp 8141/SP (1991).

  44. 44.

    STJ AgInt EDcl AREsp 1073880/SP (2017), STJ REsp 1280211/SP (2014).

  45. 45.

    STJ REsp 1280211/SP (2014), STJ REsp 866840/SP (2011).

  46. 46.

    See Pereira (1999).

  47. 47.

    Theodoro Junior (2008), p. 237; Tepedino et al. (2007), p. 300.

  48. 48.

    Art 51 of the CDC.

  49. 49.

    STJ REsp 1061530/RS (2008).

  50. 50.

    STF ADI-QO 319 (1993).

  51. 51.

    Lei 7.347/85.

  52. 52.

    STJ REsp 1296281/RS (2013), TJES Ap. cív. 00156192120088080024 (2015).

  53. 53.

    TJRS Ap. cív. 70066918426 (2016), TJRS Ap. cív. 70060906674 (2015), TJPR Ap. cív. 11867099 (2014).

  54. 54.

    TJSP Ap. cív. 21344808520178260000 (2017), TJSP Ap. cív. 21345189720178260000 (2017), TJSP Ap. cív. 21091404220178260000 (2017), TJSP Ap. cív. 2111252-81.2017.8.26.0000 (2017).

  55. 55.

    TJMG Ap. cív. 200000045751570001 (2005), TRF5 A.I. 542743520004050000 (2005), TRF5 A.I. 200005000542741 (2004).

  56. 56.

    TJDFT Ap.civ. 410239619968070000 (2010).

  57. 57.

    TJDFT Ap.civ. 20140110086830 (2016).

  58. 58.

    STJ REsp 1348081/RS (2016).

  59. 59.

    STF p. 596.

  60. 60.

    Art 9 of Dec 22626/1933 (1933 ‘Usury Act’).

  61. 61.

    STJ AgInt AREsp 835556/MS (2017), STJ AgInt AREsp 737820/MS (2017), STJ REsp 1061530/RS (2008).

  62. 62.

    STJ REsp 1388972/SC (2017).

  63. 63.

    STJ REsp 1095852/PR (2012).

  64. 64.

    Art 413 of the CC, STJ AgInt no AREsp 578006/SC (2016).

  65. 65.

    STJ REsp 1536354/DF (2017), STJ AgInt AREsp 985690/AM (2017), STJ REsp 955134/SC (2012).

  66. 66.

    SUSEP Circular 255/2004.

  67. 67.

    ANS Normative Resolution 171/2008.

  68. 68.

    ANS Normative Resolution 100/2005.

  69. 69.

    Art 4 of Lei 4595/1964.

  70. 70.

    CMN Resolution 3919/2010.

  71. 71.

    The regulation on banking contracts applies not only to banks, but also to every financial institution. According to the Statute regarding the banking system (Art 17 of Lei 4595/1964), natural or moral persons who have as its main activities the collection, intermediation or investment of financial assets owned by themselves or by third-parties shall be considered financial institutions.

  72. 72.

    Art 18 of CMN Resolution 3919/2010.

  73. 73.

    Art 21, XI of the Brazilian Constitution.

  74. 74.

    Art 2 of Lei 9472/1997.

  75. 75.

    ANATEL Resolution 576/2011.

  76. 76.

    Art 6 of the Brazilian Constitution.

  77. 77.

    Merlin Clève (2006), p. 28.

  78. 78.

    Art 21, XII, d, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  79. 79.

    Art 21, XII, e, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  80. 80.

    Art 21, XX, d, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  81. 81.

    Art 22, IX, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  82. 82.

    Art 22, XI, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  83. 83.

    Art 30, V, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  84. 84.

    Art 24, Paragraph 3, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  85. 85.

    See STF ADI 903 (2013).

  86. 86.

    ANTT Resolution 4770/2015.

  87. 87.

    ANTT Resolution 1928/2007.

  88. 88.

    Art 40 of Lei 10741/2003.

  89. 89.

    Lei 13466/2017.

  90. 90.

    Art 39 of Lei 10741/2003.

  91. 91.

    Art 32 of Lei 12852/2013.

  92. 92.

    Lei 8899/1994.

  93. 93.

    Art 49 of Lei 11182/2005.

  94. 94.

    ANAC Resolution 118/2009.

  95. 95.

    Art 13 of ANAC Resolution 400/2016.

  96. 96.

    STF ADI 1842 (2013).

  97. 97.

    Art 21, XII, b, of the Brazilian Constitution.

  98. 98.

    Lei 1145/2007.

  99. 99.

    See the Brazilian Finance Ministry Informative Note 10089/2016/COGAS/SPE/MF, regarding price terms for sanitation services.

  100. 100.

    ANEEL Normative Resolution 414/2010.

  101. 101.

    ANEEL Normative Resolution 547/2013.

  102. 102.

    Arts 6 and 31 of the CDC.

  103. 103.

    STJ REsp 1419557/SP (2014).

  104. 104.

    STJ REsp 1057828/SP (2010).

  105. 105.

    See Martins-Costa (2015).

  106. 106.

    STJ Ag Int AREsp 780054/DF (2017), STJ REsp 1599511/SP (2016).

  107. 107.

    STJ REsp 901548/RS (2012).

  108. 108.

    STJ AgRg AgRg REsp 1261824/SP (2012).

  109. 109.

    REsp 1349188/RJ (2016).

  110. 110.

    Lei 10962/2004.

  111. 111.

    Art 6 of the CMN Resolution 3919/2010.

  112. 112.

    See http://www.bcb.gov.br/fis/tarifas/htms/SegmentoServicos.asp.

  113. 113.

    Available at https://appweb.antt.gov.br/sgp/src.br.gov.antt/apresentacao/consultas/LinhasFazemSecaoDuasLocalidade.aspx.

  114. 114.

    ANATEL Resolution 632/2014.

  115. 115.

    See Motta (2004), pp. 151–152, Granados et al. (2010), pp. 207–226.

  116. 116.

    CADE AC 08700.005719/2014-65 (2015).

  117. 117.

    CADE AC 08700.010790/2015-41 (2016).

  118. 118.

    CADE AC 08700.009363/2015-10 (2016).

References

  • Frazão A (2011) Função social da empresa. Repercussões sobre a responsabilidade civil de controladores e administradores de S/As. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro, pp 105–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazão A (2013) A boa-fé objetiva e o contrato de trabalho. As funções hermenêutico-integrativa e reequilibradora. In: Tepedino G et al (eds) Diálogos entre o direito do trabalho e o direito civil. Revista dos Tribunais, Sao Paulo, pp 289–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Granados N et al (2010) Information transparency in business-to-consumer markets: concepts, framework, and research agenda. ISR pp 207–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Grau E (1998) A ordem econômica constitucional na Constituição de 1988. Revista dos tribunais, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • International Competition Network (2016) Merger Remedies Guide, p 33

    Google Scholar 

  • Konder CN (2017) Princípios contratuais e exigência de fundamentação das decisões. Boa-fé e função social do contrato à luz do CPC/2015. ROJ 19:43–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Lôbo P (2002) Princípios sociais dos contratos no CDC e no Novo Código Civil. 3/2002 RJU 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins-Costa J (2015) A boa-fé no direito privado. Critérios para a sua aplicação. Marical Pons, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlin Clève C (2006) A eficácia dos direitos fundamentais sociais. RDCI 54:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Motta M (2004) Competition policy. Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 151–152

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira CM (1999) Lesão nos contratos. Forense, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber A (2016) Existe um dever de renegociar ? RA 131:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepedino G (2006) Temas de direito civil. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro, p 251

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepedino G (2012) Marchas e contramarchas da constitucionalização do direito civil. A interpretação do direito privado à luz da constituição da república. RS 5:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepedino G et al (2007) Código civil interpretado. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro, p 300

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodoro Junior H (2008) Comentários ao novo código civil. Forense, Rio de Janeiro, p 237

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brasília, Faculty of Law, Brasília, Brazil

    Ana Frazão

Authors
  1. Ana Frazão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Frazão .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  2. Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Yeşim M. Atamer

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Pascal Pichonnaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frazão, A. (2020). Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts in Brazil. In: Atamer, Y.M., Pichonnaz, P. (eds) Control of Price Related Terms in Standard Form Contracts. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 36. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23057-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23056-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23057-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation