The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) unanimously upheld the decision of the Goiás Court of Justice (TJ-GO) in a case involving the termination of a plotpurchase contract, highlighting the application of the legal concept of supressio. This principle deals with the loss of a contractual right due to the prolonged inactivity of one of the parties.
What happened inthis case?
In the case in question, a couple had signed a promissory contract to buy and sell a plot of land, having paid more than R$77,000 in down payment and installments. However, due to financial difficulties, they went to court to have the contract rescinded and the amounts paid returned.
On the other hand, the company selling the land registered the contract in the property’s registry only after the lawsuit had begun, with the aim of applying the extrajudicial execution provided for by Law 9.514/97 and including a fiduciary alienation clause.
See also: Eviction action for non-payment of rent: STJ decides that Judicial Recovery does not interfere
What did the STJ decide?
At first instance, the judge denied the request to rescind the purchase and sale contract and ordered the couple to return the amounts related to the IPTU, ITBI, deed and registration of the property. However, the Goiás Court of Justice overturned this decision, on the grounds that the contract was only registered after the legal proceedings had begun, which made extrajudicial enforcement impossible.
The judges based their decision on the principles of the Civil Code, the Consumer Defense Code and Precedent 543 of the STJ, determining that the amounts paid should be refunded, since there was no situation of default.
Justice Nancy Andrighi, who reported the case, emphasized that the company’s conduct in registering the contract only after the litigation had begun went against the principle of objective good faith.
According to article 422 of the Civil Code, the parties must act ethically, loyally and with trust in contractual relations, so as to avoid one party benefiting unfairly from the inertia of the other.
The theory of supressiowas applied, preventing the company from carrying out the extrajudicial execution. The final decision ordered the return of the amounts paid to the couple, with a 10% retention.
See also: Post-mortem stable union: STJ defines jurisdiction for Recognition Action
What does this decision mean in practice?
This decision reinforces the importance of good faith in contractual relations and establishes that neither party can exercise absolute control over when a contract is registered, especially when such control is used to harm the other party after a lawsuit has been filed.
Doubts and questions?
We are attentive to the latest case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary in order to provide adequate and effective advice to our clients.
