In a split decision, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) confirmed on May 23 in an appeal that the period of limitation applicable to claims for damages for breach of contract is 10 years (Civil Code, section 205).
The appeal sought to have the STJ’s decision reversed based on past STJ rulings, some of which indicated that the limitation period is 3 years (for extra-contractual damages) and some indicating that the limitation period is 10 years.
In his dissenting opinion, the Justice that reported on the appeal ruled for the 3-year limitation period, as that is the period for claims for damages in general under the Civil Code, which does not specify whether such claim is based on contractual breach. The Justice chose to interpret the Civil Code based on the plain language of the provision which, in his opinion, applies to both contractual and non-contractual damages.
But the majority of the Justices ruled otherwise.
The majority opinion calls into attention the fact that the term civil damages is used only once in the Brazilian laws and in reference to extracontractual damages.
This is why the Civil Code provision in question cannot be interpreted as to apply to both contractual and extra-contractual damages, for it lacks the specific term civil damages .
The dissenting opinion alluded to the effects that this appeal will cause on legal certainty, as the topic has already been previously analyzed by the STJ.
This ruling settles the issue concerning the limitation period for the filing of claims for damages for breach of contract. By confirming the 10-year limitation period, the STJ ruling provides legal certainty to a number of contractual disputes, particularly those already pending in court.
But what calls the attention here is that this opinion was not at all unanimous. Such a split opinion shows that Justices sitting in the STJ Panels often diverge, and this compromises consistency of the STJ rulings.
