Post by messi05 on Jan 23, 2024 20:36:21 GMT -8
Decree Law 70/66 (article 38) and Law 9,514/97 (article 35-A) contain provisions providing for the payment of compensation to the owner of the property by the defaulting debtor who remains there unduly. It is still possible to cite cases of undue retention of property by a public official, in which compensation for deprivation of use has already been considered due [6] concomitantly with the fine referred to in Law 8,025/90, article 15, I, a, and compensation for disturbance or embezzlement (CC, article 952) and penalty rent in leasing (CC, article 582) and lending (CC, article 575).
The only express reference, however, is Buy Phone Number List found in article 276, III of the Brazilian Aeronautics Code (Law 7,565/86): “The following constitute collision damage, subject to compensation: (…) losses arising from deprivation of use of the aircraft rammed.” This norm has its origin closely linked to the revoked Brazilian AR Code (Decree Law 32/66), whose article 130 considered “damages resulting from the deprivation of normal use of the crashed aircraft, corresponding to lost profits”, to be compensated.
Although no specific doctrine or jurisprudence has been found on the subject, the suppression of the expression “loss of profits” in the current law still draws attention, as it seems to indicate a legal recognition that deprivation of use is capable of generating damage even when the hypothesis of loss of profits is not present. Manifestations of Brazilian doctrine Very little is found on the issue of deprivation of use at the national doctrinal level. Pontes de Miranda briefly says that “the damage can only be to the use of the asset, restricted to the assets of the possessor or the lessor; or to use and ownership” [7] .
The only express reference, however, is Buy Phone Number List found in article 276, III of the Brazilian Aeronautics Code (Law 7,565/86): “The following constitute collision damage, subject to compensation: (…) losses arising from deprivation of use of the aircraft rammed.” This norm has its origin closely linked to the revoked Brazilian AR Code (Decree Law 32/66), whose article 130 considered “damages resulting from the deprivation of normal use of the crashed aircraft, corresponding to lost profits”, to be compensated.
Although no specific doctrine or jurisprudence has been found on the subject, the suppression of the expression “loss of profits” in the current law still draws attention, as it seems to indicate a legal recognition that deprivation of use is capable of generating damage even when the hypothesis of loss of profits is not present. Manifestations of Brazilian doctrine Very little is found on the issue of deprivation of use at the national doctrinal level. Pontes de Miranda briefly says that “the damage can only be to the use of the asset, restricted to the assets of the possessor or the lessor; or to use and ownership” [7] .