Abstract
This article aims to analyze the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court regarding temporary contracts (art. 37, IX, CF/1988), especially with regard to the requirements for its validity and the concepts of “nullity” and “distortion”. The problem chosen for the research was the following: are the decisions given in themes 916 and 551 of the Federal Supreme Court conflicting or complementary? To what extent is it possible to differentiate the nullity of a temporary contract from its distortion and what are the consequences of this declaration? The article focused on the norms on the subject and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, as well as other state courts regarding this, in addition to other bibliographic sources, such as, books and scientific articles. The starting point was the hypothesis that the national courts are misinterpreting the jurisprudence of the highest Court in the country, by treating the concepts of nullity and distortion as synonymous, imposing a burden on the public that is greater than what is due in many concrete cases, which is also mentioned in the text. In conclusion, the hypothesis raised is confirmed, in the sense that the themes analyzed are not conflicting, but rather complementary.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
