Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:13:58 GMT -5
As is known, the Lease Law (8,245/91) provides, as guarantee modalities, the guarantee, the rental guarantee insurance, the fiduciary assignment of investment fund shares and the deposit (article 37), which is provided in movable or immovable property (article 38) [1] .
Furthermore, there is a custom to require that guarantors hold at least one property, whose unseizability is ruled out by article 3, VII, of Law 8,009/90 [2] ; This is a true procedural legal transaction typical of waiving the legal protection afforded.
Furthermore, CPC/15 created a B2B Lead very useful normative system for thinking about new forms of guarantees in lease contracts, based on the general clause of procedural legal transactions provided for in article 190 of the CPC [3], which, however , does not has been duly explored by lawyers in the area and is now being demonstrated.
Therefore, the idea of this text is to demonstrate that, based on procedural legal transactions, it becomes possible to think of ways to guarantee credit satisfaction that are faster and less costly for the lessor. In fact, many of them are mutually more advantageous, as they also relieve the renter, making it easier to obtain the desired property [4] .
To understand the suggestions, it is necessary to expose some premises, starting with the discourse, growing in the doctrine, of rejecting the idea — rooted in the STJ — that some hypotheses of unseizability would be matters of “public order” [5 ] and irrevocable [6] .
In fact, all unseizability is a guarantee for the debtor that those assets will receive special protection, if they are subject to execution, and the logic contrary to the STJ's thesis makes perfect sense. This is because, if it is possible to extrajudicially sell the unseizable assets and use the proceeds from the sale to pay the debt, through a judicial deposit, it is clear that this portion of the assets is not unavailable , nor irrevocable [7] .