Post by account_disabled on Feb 19, 2024 1:19:58 GMT -5
But what about contracts that stipulate automatic extension clauses? As is the case with bank contracts.
Faced with this question, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) takes the position that the claim of binding guarantors for an indefinite period is inadmissible. See if:
SPECIAL RESOURCE. ACTION FOR RELEASE OF BAIL. BANK CONTRACT. AUTOMATIC RENOVATION. LEGALITY. POWER OF THE CLAUSE OF WAIVER OF THE RIGHT OF EXEMPTION AFTER THE INDETERMINATION OF THE TERM OF THE WARRANTY CONTRACT. EXEMPTION FROM THE END OF THE SIXTY-DAY PERIOD STARTING WITH THE SUMMONS OF THE DEFENDANT. DISSIDENCE. NO DEMONSTRATION. 1. The jurisprudence of this Court has established the understanding that the clause that establishes the automatic extension of the guarantee together Telegram Number Data with that of the main contract is valid, and it is up to the guarantor, when seeking to be exonerated, to carry out, during the contractual extension period, the provided notification in art. 835 of the Civil Code. 2. The contractual clause waiving the right to exoneration is not effective after the extension of the guarantee contract, and the intention of binding the guarantors for an indefinite period is inadmissible. 3. The release arising from the request for exoneration, however, does not result from the mere indeterminacy of the bail contract, as suggested by the author, but is effective from the end of the period of sixty (60) days counted from the notification or summons of the defendant in the exoneration action. 4. SPECIAL APPEAL PARTIALLY PROVIDED. (REsp nº 1.673.383/SP, rapporteur minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, 3rd Panel, judged on 6/11/2019, DJe of 6/19/2019.)
In a brief account of the case set out above, the guarantor, when guaranteeing a bank contract from a third party, expressly waived the right to exoneration, even if the contract was renewed.
Faced with this situation, the guarantor decided to initiate legal proceedings with the aim of exempting himself from the contract, however, he did not obtain a favorable decision either in the first instance or in the second instance.
However, as per the understanding set out above, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reversed the decisions of the lower courts (1st and 2nd).
According to former reporting minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino ( in memoriam ), the STJ's jurisprudence is that the contractual clause that stipulates the automatic extension is valid.
Therefore, if the guarantor intends to request his release, he must provide notification in accordance with article 835 of the Civil Code, as mentioned above, during the contractual extension period.
The former minister added that the release resulting from the exoneration request takes effect at the end of the 60-day period, counted from the notification or summons of the defendant in the execution action.
This measure aims to guarantee adequate time for the parties involved in the demand to adapt to the new contractual conditions.
In view of the above, in summary, the STJ validated the automatic extension of the guarantor. Therefore, it is up to the guarantor, if he wishes, to request his release from the contract. After that, he will respond for a period of 60 days from the notification sent to the creditor.
Faced with this question, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) takes the position that the claim of binding guarantors for an indefinite period is inadmissible. See if:
SPECIAL RESOURCE. ACTION FOR RELEASE OF BAIL. BANK CONTRACT. AUTOMATIC RENOVATION. LEGALITY. POWER OF THE CLAUSE OF WAIVER OF THE RIGHT OF EXEMPTION AFTER THE INDETERMINATION OF THE TERM OF THE WARRANTY CONTRACT. EXEMPTION FROM THE END OF THE SIXTY-DAY PERIOD STARTING WITH THE SUMMONS OF THE DEFENDANT. DISSIDENCE. NO DEMONSTRATION. 1. The jurisprudence of this Court has established the understanding that the clause that establishes the automatic extension of the guarantee together Telegram Number Data with that of the main contract is valid, and it is up to the guarantor, when seeking to be exonerated, to carry out, during the contractual extension period, the provided notification in art. 835 of the Civil Code. 2. The contractual clause waiving the right to exoneration is not effective after the extension of the guarantee contract, and the intention of binding the guarantors for an indefinite period is inadmissible. 3. The release arising from the request for exoneration, however, does not result from the mere indeterminacy of the bail contract, as suggested by the author, but is effective from the end of the period of sixty (60) days counted from the notification or summons of the defendant in the exoneration action. 4. SPECIAL APPEAL PARTIALLY PROVIDED. (REsp nº 1.673.383/SP, rapporteur minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, 3rd Panel, judged on 6/11/2019, DJe of 6/19/2019.)
In a brief account of the case set out above, the guarantor, when guaranteeing a bank contract from a third party, expressly waived the right to exoneration, even if the contract was renewed.
Faced with this situation, the guarantor decided to initiate legal proceedings with the aim of exempting himself from the contract, however, he did not obtain a favorable decision either in the first instance or in the second instance.
However, as per the understanding set out above, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reversed the decisions of the lower courts (1st and 2nd).
According to former reporting minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino ( in memoriam ), the STJ's jurisprudence is that the contractual clause that stipulates the automatic extension is valid.
Therefore, if the guarantor intends to request his release, he must provide notification in accordance with article 835 of the Civil Code, as mentioned above, during the contractual extension period.
The former minister added that the release resulting from the exoneration request takes effect at the end of the 60-day period, counted from the notification or summons of the defendant in the execution action.
This measure aims to guarantee adequate time for the parties involved in the demand to adapt to the new contractual conditions.
In view of the above, in summary, the STJ validated the automatic extension of the guarantor. Therefore, it is up to the guarantor, if he wishes, to request his release from the contract. After that, he will respond for a period of 60 days from the notification sent to the creditor.