Abstract
Brazilian law offers no generic provision to permit disgorging ill-gotten gains from an agent’s wealth. Some doctrines actually do provide this, either directly or indirectly, for instance in the case of unjust enrichment, especially when viewed as profit from intervention. Likewise, business administration on one hand enables any profit obtained from such administration to be retrieved from the agent’s wealth, since this benefit belongs to the owner of the business; on the other hand, this avoids unjust enrichment on the part of the owner of the business, obliging him to compensate the manager for any necessary or useful expenses incurred by the latter. Although the structure and function of civil liability are not compatible with disgorgement of profits, one can see a (non-technical) tendency in jurisprudence to use the doctrine for this purpose, especially when the profit obtained by means of the agent’s damaging conduct is greater than that suffered by the victim. Indeed, a detailed analysis of Brazilian law shows that since certain concrete situations are not provided for, there are occasions when illicit activity unfortunately renders benefits for the agent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Supreme Court of Justice holds that so-called “aesthetic damage” is an autonomous type of damage, and therefore different from moral and material damage, as expressly stated in the Court’s Summary 387: “It is licit to accumulate compensations for aesthetic and moral damage”. Note that the Summaries have no legal effect, nor do they have to be considered by the other courts, or even by the Supreme Court of Justice itself, whose Ministers are free to judge differently from the majority understanding of the Court. The existence of autonomous damage, designated “aesthetic damage” is the object of criticism from the doctrine see Monteiro Filho (2000), 51.
- 2.
In respect to the above-mentioned moral damage, see Bodin de Moraes (2003), 132. The concept of moral damage is not consensual in Brazilian doctrine; some authors define it as injury to personality rights (Gomes (1996), 271), while others claim that moral damage is the non-property effect of the injury (Rodrigues (1993)).
- 3.
Article 402 of the Civil Code. “Save for the exceptions expressly provided by law, the losses and damages suffered by the creditor or include, in addition to what he actually lost, what he reasonably failed to gain.” For a thorough study on the concept of pecuniary damage and lost profits in Brazilian law, see Guedes (2011).
- 4.
Monteiro Filho (2000), 51. Note, nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Justice opinion mentioned in footnote 1 above.
- 5.
- 6.
“After all, if the objective is to repair moral damage unjustly suffered, there is no reason to defend any concept of damage caused” (Bodin de Moraes (2003), 304).
- 7.
With regard to the need for express legal authorization to use the wrongdoer’s profit as a parameter for calculating lost profits, see Guedes (2011), 212.
- 8.
Special note should be taken that the only hypothesis in which analysis of the wrongdoer’s conduct is admitted in Brazilian law appears in article 944, single paragraph, of the Civil Code, and serves only to reduce compensation, never to increase it.
- 9.
- 10.
Strictly speaking, more than once the Legislative Power has had the opportunity to attribute punitive function but refrained from doing so. When the Consumer’s Defense Code (Law 8.078/1990) was being drafted, one provision created a civil fine whose only function was to penalize the wrongdoer; the norm was excluded by presidential veto. Later on, when the Civil Code of 2002 was edited, an attempt was made to attribute a punitive function to moral damage by means of Draft Law 6.960/2002, which provided including a Clause 2 in article 944 of the Civil Code, as follows: “Reparation of moral damage should constitute compensation for the victim and adequate discouragement for the wrongdoer”. The proposal was rejected.
- 11.
Andrade (2006).
- 12.
Supreme Court of Justice, 2ª Turma, Recurso Especial 487749, Relatora Ministra Eliana Calmon, 2003.
- 13.
“In view of the lack of objective parameters to set the value of compensation, the following elements were observed: gravity and extent of the damage, reincidence of the wrongdoer, professional and social position of the victim, and financial condition of wrongdoer and victim. Thus, the moral damages set by the original Court at a derisory amount were increased by this Higher Court in order that the value of the compensation for moral damages would respect the concepts “discouraging sum” and “compensatory sum” (Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Agravo Regimental no Agravo 1072844, Relator Ministro Luis Felipe Salomão, 2011). In this same sense, see Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 9ª Câmara Cível, Embargos Infringentes 521, Relator Desembargador Jorge Magalhães, 2001.
- 14.
Civil Code, Article 927 and Civil Code, Article 186 (subjective responsibility based on fault).
- 15.
Civil Code, Article 927, single paragraph (objective responsibility regardless of proof of the fault of the agent who caused the damage).
- 16.
“There is a clear distinction between civil responsibility and unjust enrichment: the former grants dynamic protection to wealth based on the principle of neminem laedere and is designed to reimburse fully the damage suffered by the victim, while the latter only offers static protection to wealth which, being less intense, involves cases not covered by civil responsibility, such as when there is no illicitude or damage. Application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment is aimed not to repair damage but rather to force the benefitted party to return what has been unduly appropriate.” (Tepedino et al. (2006), 754–755). In this same sense, see Noronha (2013), 443.
- 17.
Konder (2005), 383.
- 18.
That is to say, an act by which someone, at his own cost, increases someone else’s wealth, as in the case of undue payment (Civil Code, Article 876), or in the hypothesis where the proprietor receives the good with improvements made by the possessor.
- 19.
Konder (2005), 381.
- 20.
Savi (2011), 7.
- 21.
Nanni (2012), 258.
- 22.
Noronha (2011), 1093.
- 23.
- 24.
Regarding reimbursement of improvements, see Civil Code, Articles 1.219, 1.220 and 1.222.
- 25.
Savi (2011), 91.
- 26.
The decision was reformed by the Supreme Court of Justice precisely in the section that used the wrongdoer’s profit as criterion to set moral damage (Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Recurso Especial 100764, Relator Ministro Ruy Rosado de Aguiar Junior, 1998). The Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice maintained the same decision in the “Tim Maia” case, in which the image of the singer, elected by the Rolling Stone Brasil magazine the 9th top artist in Brazilian music, was used by a clothing firm to stamp on t-shirts without the necessary authorization of his relatives (at the time, the singer was already dead): “Exhibition of a photograph of the de cujus on t-shirts commercialized by the appellant without authorization. Absence of proof that the accused obtained authorization to use the image of the late singer Tim Maia on the clothes. Infringement of right of personality. The accused having obtained economic profit from commercializing the product, material damage is therefore characterized in the investigated gains, to be assessed in liquidation of the award. (…)” (Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 4ª Câmara Cível, Apelação Cível 0107626-90.2011.8.19.0001, Relator Desembargador Paulo Maurício Pereira, 2013).
- 27.
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 17ª Câmara Cível, Apelação Cível 2009.001.08023, Relator Desembargador Custódio Tostes, 2009.
- 28.
Law 8.078/1990.
- 29.
Law 7.347/1985.
- 30.
It should be noted that article 91 does not exhaust the repertoire of the collective processes in defense of homogeneous individual interests. It is possible that actions favoring protection of such interests are aimed at condemning the obligation to do or not to do, or that it is of a merely declaratory or constitutive nature, in keeping with article 83 of Law 8.078/1990.
- 31.
Grinover et al. (2011), 158.
- 32.
Law 9.008/1995, article 1.
- 33.
Note that although this Fund was set up to collect the value of condemnations in cash decided in public or collective civil actions, it also receives the value of imposed fines based on Law 7.347/1985, provided these are imposed because of injury to indivisible trans-individual interests. In this sense, see Mazzilli (2004), 451.
- 34.
- 35.
In this sense, see the decision made by the Supreme Court of Justice, 3ª Turma, Recurso Especial 1291213, Relator Ministro Sidnei Beneti, 2012.
- 36.
Law 9.279/1996.
- 37.
“The function of lost profits in civil responsibility is flagrantly reparatory. Therefore, in assessing this facet of property damage, it is not recommended to introduce criteria that are not even used in civil responsibility, at the risk of turning reparation of ceasing profits into a veritable Pandora’s box, which, although it incites curiosity, is always best left untouched” (Guedes (2011), 223).
- 38.
Cerqueira (1982), 284.
- 39.
Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Recurso Especial 710.376, Relator Ministro Luís Felipe Salomão, 2009.
- 40.
Schreiber (2007), 102.
- 41.
Article 1.198, Civil Code.
- 42.
Civil Code, Article 389.
- 43.
Civil Code, Article 394.
- 44.
Civil Code, Article 475.
- 45.
Bodin de Moraes (2003), 163–165.
- 46.
As shown in item 3.1 above, contractual default by infringement of publicity rights, for example, can lead to application of enrichment by intervention whenever it results in the contractor’s obtaining ill-gotten gains, as in the concrete case of the decision made in Apelação Cível 2009.001.08023, although the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice did not apply the doctrine to solve the dispute.
- 47.
Bevilaqua (1980), 65.
- 48.
Civil Code, Article 861.
- 49.
Civil Code, Article 869.
Bibliography
Andrade, A. 2006. Dano moral e indenização punitiva : os punitive damages na experiência do common law e na perspectiva do direito brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Bessa, L. 2006. Dano moral coletivo. Revista de Direito do Consumidor 59: 78–108.
Bevilaqua, C. 1980. Código Civil dos Estados Unidos do Brasil Comentado, edição histórica. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Rio.
Bittar Filho, C. 1994. Do dano moral coletivo no atual contexto brasileiro. Revista de Direito do Consumido 12: 44–62.
Bodin de Moraes, M. 2003. Danos à pessoa humana: uma leitura civil-constitucional dos danos morais. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Cerqueira, J. 1982. Tratado da Propriedade Industrial, vol. 1. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
Gomes, O. 1996. Obrigações. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Grinover, A., et al. 2011. Código Brasileiro e Defesa do Consumidor Comentado pelos Autores do Anteprojeto, vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro: Forense.
Guedes, G. 2011. Lucros Cessantes: do bom-senso ao postulado normativo da razoabilidade. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
Konder, C. 2005. Enriquecimento sem causa e pagamento indevido. In Obrigações Estudos na perspectiva civil-constitucional, ed. G. Tepedino, 369–398. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Mazzilli, H. 2004. A Defesa dos Interesses Difusos em Juízo: meio ambiente, consumidor, patrimônio cultural, patrimônio público e outros interesses. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Michelon Jr., C. 2011. O enriquecimento sem causa no Código Civil brasileiro. In Obrigaçõe, ed. R. Lotufo and G. Nanni, 872–901. São Paulo: Atlas.
Monteiro Filho, C. 2000. Elementos de Responsabilidade Civil por Dano Moral. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Mulholland, C. 2009. A Responsabilidade Civil por Presunção de Causalidade. Rio de Janeiro: Editora GZ.
Nanni, G. 2012. Enriquecimento sem Causa. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Noronha, F. 2011. Enriquecimento sem causa. In Obrigações e Contratos, vol. 1, ed. G. Tepedino and L. Fachin, 1085–1122. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
Noronha, F. 2013. Direito das Obrigações. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Rodrigues, S. 1993. Direito Civil: Responsabilidade Civil. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Savi, S. 2011. Responsabilidade Civil e Enriquecimento sem causa. O Lucro da Intervenção. São Paulo: Atlas.
Schreiber, A. 2007. Novos Paradigmas da Responsabilidade Civil: da erosão dos filtros da responsabilidade civil à diluição dos danos. São Paulo: Atlas.
Tepedino, G., and A. Schreiber. 2006. As penas privadas no direito brasileiro. In Direitos fundamentais: estudos em homenagem ao Professor Ricardo Lobo Torres, ed. F. Galdino and D. Sarmento, 499–525. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Tepedino, G., et al. 2006. Código Civil Interpretado Conforme a Constituição da República, vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
Tepedino, G., et al. 2007. Código Civil Interpretado Conforme a Constituição da República, vol. 1. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar.
List of Cases
Supreme Court of Justice
Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Recurso Especial 100764, Relator Ministro Ruy Rosado de Aguiar Junior, 1998
Supreme Court of Justice, 2ª Turma, Recurso Especial 487749, Relatora Ministra Eliana Calmon, 2003
Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Recurso Especial 710.376, Relator Ministro Luís Felipe Salomão, 2009
Supreme Court of Justice, 4ª Turma, Agravo Regimental no Agravo 1072844, Relator Ministro Luis Felipe Salomão, 2011
Supreme Court of Justice, 3ª Turma, Recurso Especial 1291213, Relator Ministro Sidnei Beneti, 2012
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 4ª Câmara Cível, Apelação Cível 0107626-90.2011.8.19.0001, Relator Desembargador Paulo Maurício Pereira, 2013
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 5ª Câmara Cível, Apelação Cível 6.913, Relator Desembargador Murillo Fábregas, 1995
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 9ª Câmara Cível, Embargos Infringentes 521, Relator Desembargador Jorge Magalhães, 2001
Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, 17ª Câmara Cível, Apelação Cível 2009.001.08023, Relator Desembargador Custódio Tostes, 2009
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Miranda Valverde Terra, A. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in Brazilian Law. In: Hondius, E., Janssen, A. (eds) Disgorgement of Profits. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18758-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18759-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)