Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 7:02:57 GMT
Although the country is experiencing an epidemic of the new coronavirus, this fact alone does not justify the suspension or termination of contracts, without there being any proof of the damage caused.
Based on this B2B Lead understanding, the 26th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice denied a request from a company that intended to suspend payment for a property, sold at a judicial auction, due to the Covid-19 epidemic.
The company wanted to postpone the process for 60 days, with the suspension of payments, claiming that, due to the quarantine in the State of São Paulo, it had to break contracts with customers and suppliers, which compromised its finances.
According to the rapporteur, judge Antonio Nascimento, "the hypothetical damage does not justify the intended protection". "Indeed, there must be a minimum of plausibility of the right" invoked, under penalty of generating an irremediable future situation, perhaps more harmful than the one currently found, in addition to implying an offense to the principle of legal certainty", he added.
The rapporteur also stated that the contract under analysis "encloses a sign", with reciprocal obligations to the contracting parties and, therefore, authorizing the measure sought by the appellant would result "in the attribution of the business area only to the counterparty". The decision was made unanimously in a virtual trial session of the Chamber.
Based on this B2B Lead understanding, the 26th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice denied a request from a company that intended to suspend payment for a property, sold at a judicial auction, due to the Covid-19 epidemic.
The company wanted to postpone the process for 60 days, with the suspension of payments, claiming that, due to the quarantine in the State of São Paulo, it had to break contracts with customers and suppliers, which compromised its finances.
According to the rapporteur, judge Antonio Nascimento, "the hypothetical damage does not justify the intended protection". "Indeed, there must be a minimum of plausibility of the right" invoked, under penalty of generating an irremediable future situation, perhaps more harmful than the one currently found, in addition to implying an offense to the principle of legal certainty", he added.
The rapporteur also stated that the contract under analysis "encloses a sign", with reciprocal obligations to the contracting parties and, therefore, authorizing the measure sought by the appellant would result "in the attribution of the business area only to the counterparty". The decision was made unanimously in a virtual trial session of the Chamber.