1. INTRODUCTION
The advent of the coronavirus pandemic constituted an unprecedented historical milestone, bringing with it a series of challenges and uncertainties across multiple sectors of society. Particularly notable has been its profound and multifaceted impact on the global economy, raising pertinent questions about the legal and contractual ramifications arising from this unprecedented crisis. In this context, crucial issues related to contracts emerge, requiring detailed and careful analysis to understand the legal implications and developments unfolding in this turbulent scenario.
We are experiencing a period of profound global unrest, a phase marked by significant adversity and challenges, where healthcare systems around the world are facing extreme pressure, many on the verge of collapse, due to the relentless advance of the pandemic. The repercussions of this health crisis transcend the limits of public health, directly reaching the economic sphere and substantially impacting both individuals and legal entities. The extent of the economic damage caused by the coronavirus is still uncertain, revealing a panorama of losses affecting a variety of contracts in different sectors.
Given this situation, it is imperative to explore existing legal mechanisms capable of offering answers and solutions to emerging contractual dilemmas. In this context, the Theory of Unforeseen Events emerges as a relevant legal principle, providing a framework for renegotiating or terminating contracts in extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances that drastically alter the fairness and viability of contractual performance.
This article proposes an in-depth examination of the Theory of Unforeseen Events, outlining its history, foundations, and applicability in the current legal context. The nuances of this theory, its application in legislation, and the relevant doctrinal interpretation will be discussed, with the aim of elucidating the possibility of contract review or termination in light of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, this study aims to investigate the concrete impacts of the coronavirus on contracts and evaluate the practical application of the Theory of Unforeseen Events in this exceptional scenario, providing valuable insights for understanding and managing emerging contractual issues in this era of uncertainty.
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2.1. HISTORY AND CONCEPTS.
Legal certainty provides economic, political, and social stability, and is also an essential element for contractual relationships, fostering harmony and confidence in the fulfillment of the parties' agreements. In this regard, pacta sunt servanda (from the Latin “pacts are to be observed”), it is a basic principle that confers from it the obligation to comply with what was contractually agreed, the binding force that the assumed pacts have (LOPES, 2017).
Thus, the binding force of contracts is a principle of Brazilian law, also existing in several other countries, adopted from Roman law. It prevents any contractual change that is not the result of the will of the parties, and no external event can serve as justification for contractual modification, even if it were to result in an imbalance between the parties (CASTRO, 2020).
This understanding was transformed, since with the two great world wars a context of economic crisis arose, shortage of raw materials and goods, impediment to the free movement of goods and people, and a series of other factors, making the fulfillment of contracts very difficult at this time (CASTRO, 2020).
Castro (2020) states that several exceptional and transitory laws at the time emerged in France and Italy to resolve the situation, relativizing the principle of binding force, sometimes suspending it, allowing the termination of the contract, as well as granting a moratorium.
Foreign doctrine resorted to the jurisprudence of ecclesiastical courts and the lessons of post-glossators and identified the existence of an implicit clause: the rebus sic stantibus clause.
According to this, in contracts that depend on a future event, which do not arise and end immediately, the binding relationship is understood to be maintained as long as the actual state of affairs prevailing at the time of the stipulation remains, such that, should the objective environment be modified by supervening and unforeseen circumstances, the binding force will no longer be preserved. This clause is part of life, plays a social, economic, and legal role, and is a contributing factor to social peace.
Based on this, the Italians called it the theory of supervenience, while the French called it the theory of unpredictability, the latter embraced by scholars around the world. (CASTRO, 2020)
Therefore, the Theory of Unforeseeability establishes that in the event of a future event, not foreseeable by people at the time of the declaration of will, but which makes its fulfillment impossible, the performance will be unenforceable (CASTRO, 2020).
When the difference reaches a significant value, when the lack of equivalence becomes evident to those most ignorant of the course of prices, when the disruption of equilibrium is the consequence of a war or a public calamity, the review of contracts becomes a more pressing demand. Until this request finds a better justification than the difference in price courses, it cannot be granted. To avoid financial catastrophes and possible bankruptcies, the legislator, through circumstantial laws, grants payment deadlines and authorizes extensions or revisions of contracts. These are expedient measures that are often useful, sometimes effective. There is then expropriation of the creditor's right in the interest of public peace, but not the regular application of a legal rule (RIPERT, 2009).
In this regard, it is worth mentioning the clause rebus sic stantibus (from the Latin “things being so”), which translates the theory of unpredictability, by which it seeks to maintain the contract as long as things remain in the same conditions as when the contract was drawn up. This is an exception to the obligation of the contract (pacta sunt servanda), since if there is excessive burden on one of the parties, causing a contractual imbalance, the contract can be reviewed or changed, in order to maintain the balance (LOPES, 2017)
Ripert (2009) teaches that the meaning of the clause rebus sic stantibus arises from an extraordinary event, beyond human control, that justifies contractual review. This abuse begins when the contractual imbalance occurs to such an extent that the contracting party could not foresee that it would derive such an advantage from the contract. As a prerequisite, the event must make performance of the contract extremely difficult and burdensome for the debtor.
1. The unforeseeable nature of an event does not depend on the nature of the event itself, but on what was impossible to foresee that would occur and change the situation. Thus, war can only be taken into account if it provokes a change in the economic situation. The law of January 21, 1918, applied only to contracts concluded before the war; the law of July 6, 1925, to leases begun and concluded before October 24, 1919; the jurisprudence of the Council of State reveals that coal reached an unforeseeable price after the war.
2. Difficult or costly contract performance will most often result from price changes. The debtor will go to great lengths to obtain the goods or materials to be delivered; the contractor will be unable to perform the work at the agreed price except by making a considerable sacrifice of his personal wealth; the public service concessionaire will be threatened with bankruptcy; the rental price is not in relation to the rental value of the property (RIPERT, 2009).
Beginning with Arnoldo Medeiros da Fonseca, in his 1932 work "Caso Fortuito e Teoria da Imprevisão" (Fortuitous Event and Theory of Unforeseen Events), force majeure and fortuitous events were structured as exclusions of liability in Brazilian law (CASTRO, 2020). It is worth highlighting some relevant legal provisions that relate to the institutions discussed here. Let us examine:
Art. 317. When, for unforeseeable reasons, there is a clear disproportion between the value of the payment due and the value at the time of its execution, the judge may correct it, at the request of the party, so as to ensure, as far as possible, the real value of the payment.
(…)
Art. 393. The debtor shall not be liable for losses resulting from unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, unless he has expressly taken responsibility for them.
Sole paragraph. A fortuitous event or force majeure occurs when the effects of a necessary event cannot be avoided or prevented.
(…)
Art. 427. The contract proposal binds the proponent, unless the contrary results from its terms, the nature of the business, or the circumstances of the case. (BRAZIL, 2002)
In this regard, article 393 consists of an exclusion of liability for losses suffered by the creditor, due to a fact resulting from force majeure or fortuitous event, consisting of the materialization of the Theory of Unforeseen Events in legislation.
Thus, Diniz (2010) teaches that the non-performance of an obligation due to a fact not attributable to the debtor is enshrined in our law, mainly through the principle of the debtor's exoneration due to the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation without his fault. The creditor will not be entitled to compensation for losses resulting from force majeure (act of god) or fortuitous event.
This does not mean, however, that any impossibility of performance will always be grounds for extinguishing the obligation, since, when there is no essential term, permanent impossibility of performance or its uselessness for the creditor at a future time, the appropriate solution may be the extension of the term for payment, with maintenance of the duties of execution. (MONTEIRO FILHO, ROSENVALD, DENSA, 2020)
Furthermore, it is crucial to address the excessive burden provided for in Article 478 of the Civil Code, which establishes that in contracts of continuous or deferred performance, if the performance of one party becomes excessively burdensome, to the extreme advantage of the other, due to extraordinary and unforeseeable events, the debtor may request termination of the contract. Furthermore, Article 479 establishes that termination may be avoided by the defendant offering to equitably modify the terms of the contract. Finally, Article 480 provides that if the obligations in the contract fall to only one of the parties, that party may request that its performance be reduced or the manner of performance changed in order to avoid excessive burden.
Our legislation is more favorable to a contractual renegotiation, in the event of an imbalance, adapting to existing conditions, than to a contractual breach (LOPES, 2017).
According to Agostinho Alvim, "default on the part of the debtor may be absolute or result in simple delay: absolute default and default-delay, the first of which is subdivided into total or partial absolute default." Absolute default is the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation, either fully or partially. Partial default occurs if the obligation comprises several installments, and one or some cannot be satisfied, with the obligation remaining with respect to the others. According to the same author, "default exists if the obligation has not been fulfilled in the place, at the time, or in the manner agreed upon, with the possibility of fulfillment remaining in any case" (MONTEIRO FILHO, ROSENVALD, DENSA, 2020).
Although there is a doctrinal lineage that establishes distinctions between unforeseeable circumstances and force majeure, the Brazilian Civil Code does not establish a clear separation between these concepts. According to this line of thought, an unforeseeable circumstance is an event that could neither be foreseen nor avoided, while a force majeure is an event that, although foreseeable, could not be avoided. Flávio Tartuce, on the other hand, defines an unforeseeable circumstance as completely unpredictable and force majeure as foreseeable but inevitable. However, in legal practice and court decisions, there is a tendency to unify these concepts, without a strict distinction between them, following the more generic approach adopted by the legislator.
Act of God and force majeure can be considered synonymous, as the expressions are intended to complement each other. This is the context of the sole paragraph of Article 393. In various senses, the distinction between internal and external acts of God is important due to the diversity of consequences. Unlike internal acts of God, external acts of God exclude liability. In internal acts of God, the harmful event did not result from the agent's fault, but from a situation directly linked to the risks of the professional activity performed by the person causing the damage. The risk comes from "inside out," being more than a simple scenario or occasion for the event, translated into an event preventable by the person undertaking the activity. The term "force majeure" can only be applied to external acts of God for the purpose of exonerating the agent's liability, as seen in the case alluded to in Article 734, Civil Code/02. At this point, it is important to observe Statement 442 of the Federal Justice Council: “Fortuitous events and force majeure will only be considered as exclusions of civil liability when the event causing the damage is not connected to the activity carried out (MONTEIRO FILHO, ROSENVALD, DENSA, 2020)
According to Bdine Jr. (2010) the most important characteristic of these exclusion of liability is the inevitability, the impossibility of being avoided by human forces. To characterize a fortuitous event or force majeure, the fact must be necessary and not determined by the debtor's fault, being supervening and inevitable, irresistible, completely beyond the reach of human power.
Baptista (1983), before the entry into force of our Civil Code of 2002, comparing it with other legal systems, such as French and English, already stated that the following are essential to characterize force majeure: unpredictability, inevitability, and externality in relation to the contractual parties, resulting in the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation.
Dr. Baptista (1983) also states that most contract drafters, especially those from countries of common law, usually characterize the circumstances constituting force majeure. Thus, for the author, events considered as force majeure can be grouped together. Let's see:
Cataclysm: earthquakes, typhoons, storms, fires, mudslides, floods, drought, lightning, freezing of roads and railways, epidemics, where the English use the expression acts of god (…) (BAPTISTA, 1983)
Rosenvald (2020) teaches that in the context of international contracts, force majeure will be considered a “triggering event”, a trigger linked to a tangible or intangible barrier that, once violated, causes another event to occur, such as contract resolution or renegotiation.
In the Brazilian legal sphere, the Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, when analyzing REsp 945,166 in 2012, consolidated the understanding that fluctuations in the value of agricultural products or inputs, as well as the emergence of pests on plantations – specifically Asian rust in the case analyzed –, do not constitute sufficient grounds to invoke the theory of unpredictability in order to discuss excessive burden in agricultural contracts.
In this specific context, the Court of Justice of Goiás had accepted the claim of a farmer seeking to terminate a future soybean purchase and sale contract with a company, arguing that climate change and pests had caused an increase in the prices of soybeans and agricultural inputs. However, Justice Luis Felipe Salomão, reporting judge on the appeal, emphasized that a contractual change due to excessive burden requires the occurrence of an extraordinary and unforeseeable event, transcending the ordinary fluctuations inherent in the activity.
Minister Salomão emphasized that variations in the price of soybeans are predictable, considering the nature of the product, which is subject to market dynamics and trading on stock exchanges, as well as the presence of Asian rust in Brazilian crops since 2001, a known and manageable pest, which does not constitute a surprise for the sector.
In a separate analysis, when reviewing Resp 1.998.206, the Fourth Panel ruled that the COVID-19 pandemic, in itself, does not justify a proportional review of school fees based on the theories of unforeseeability or excessive burden. Justice Salomão emphasized that, despite the continuity of educational services, adjusted to the conditions imposed by the health situation, there was no contractual imbalance that would justify such a review.
On the other hand, in REsp 1,984,277, the same Panel recognized the feasibility of reviewing non-residential lease agreements due to the impact of the pandemic, highlighting a need for readjustment to maintain the economic and financial balance of the parties involved.
In the judgment of Special Appeal (REsp) 1,321,614, the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) addressed an issue concerning the applicability of the theory of unforeseeability in a context of major exchange rate devaluation. The case involved a physician who purchased imported ultrasound equipment for US$82,000. Faced with a significant devaluation of the real, the physician requested a review of the contractual clauses based on the theory of unforeseeability, aiming to adjust the amount due due to the adverse exchange rate variation.
Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, the case's rapporteur, emphasized that judicial intervention in contracts, from the perspective of the theory of unforeseeability or excessive burden, requires proof of supervening, unforeseeable and extraordinary changes in the circumstances existing at the time of the contract's execution, which substantially affect the value of the service.
In the case under review, the court concluded that the contractual relationship was equal and not subject to consumer protection regulations, noting that the risk of exchange rate fluctuations is an inherent element of contracts signed in foreign currency. The country's history of economic instability and the possibility of exchange rate fluctuations were considered foreseeable factors, therefore not justifying a contractual review based on the theory of unpredictability.
Thus, the STJ decided that the major devaluation of the real that occurred in January 1999 did not authorize the application of the theory of unpredictability to the review of the dollar indexation clause, reiterating the importance of analyzing predictability and assuming risks in contractual agreements.
Furthermore, the First Panel, when evaluating REsp 1,797,714, reiterated that salary adjustments resulting from collective agreements do not constitute unpredictable events and therefore do not serve as a basis for the renegotiation of administrative contracts, reinforcing the predictability of these adjustments in the context of public procurement.
2.2. CORONAVIRUS AND CONTRACTS
A contract is a legal transaction, a bilateral or multilateral act, resulting from the parties' declaration of intent, intended to create, alter, or extinguish rights and duties between the parties to the relationship. In this regard, the contract must comply with the legal system, following principles such as social and economic function, good faith, and good customs, in addition to having a lawful content (TARTUCE, 2020).
Contracts are instruments par excellence for the circulation of wealth, and exchanges demand utility and justice, censuring abuses of contractual freedom (BDINE JR, 2010). Monteiro Filho, Rosenvald and Densa (2020) state that the contract consists of an obligatory source by which the parties agree on risks, being more than the instrument for the circulation of goods and services, configuring the economic reality itself.
Analyzing the contract as a practice implies understanding it as an element inextricably linked to the society in which it exists. The reasons for this assertion are quite trivial, as a contractual relationship cannot be conceived without stabilizing institutions, social rules, values, economics, and language. In other words, there is no contract outside the context of a given social matrix that gives it meaning and defines its rules. As previously emphasized, there is no contract outside a market order, and this without a society to support it (MONTEIRO FILHO, ROSENVALD, DENSA, 2020).
Law 13,874 of September 20, 2019, known as the Economic Freedom Law, added a sole paragraph to Article 421 of the Civil Code, establishing the principle of minimal intervention in contracts and the exceptional nature of contractual review. The Coronavirus pandemic falls within this exceptionality.
March 2020. A dystopian scenario is spreading globally, indiscriminately affecting countries of varying levels of development. A scenario comparable to the so-called Spanish influenza (of 1918, which resulted in the deaths of 100 million people) or the Black Death (of the 14th century, which decimated between 75 and 200 million people) is immediately being discussed. The initial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting from the novel coronavirus that spread from the city of Wuhan in China since December of last year, primarily affect the health of the population and, in its wake, the personal and economic relationships established within society (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
COVID-19 has affected and will continue to affect various contractual relationships in a wide range of areas. Due to the rapid spread of the virus and the risk of overcrowding in the public and private healthcare systems in Brazil, we are seeing the closure of businesses, public, private, and sporting events, offices, among others.
In this sense, Leite (2020) claims that the Theory of Unforeseen Events will be applicable in line with the factual basis that the coronavirus brings us, as long as there is contractual imbalance, excessive burden for one of the parties and absence of delay.
In this regard, reference is made to the open enumeration of factors that must necessarily be taken into consideration when deciding the specific case: (i) the manner and time in which the effects of the epidemic cycle affect the agreed-upon services; (ii) possible alternative means of executing the service; (iii) the market in which the activity under analysis operates; (iv) the increase in the cost of inputs necessary for the agreed-upon production; (v) the possible presence of inputs that allow replacing those necessary for fulfilling the contractually assumed duties; (vi) the terms of the contractual stipulation and its nature; (vii) the presence of clauses limiting or excluding liability; (viii) hardship clause; (ix) warranty clauses; (x) force majeure clauses; (xi) mediation, conciliation, and arbitration clauses; (xii) the economic equation of the business, in light of the functional balance of the contract; (xiii) the possible situation of delay of one or both parties; among many other circumstances inseparable from assessment (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus, in itself, cannot be considered a broad reason for breach of contractual obligations. The direct impact of COVID-19 on the contractual relationship must be proven, as well as the specific and general context associated with that contract.
For practical purposes, considering all the institutions addressed in this article, we have the case between the Bahia State Retailers' Union and the Naciguat Condominium (Shopping in Bahia). The Union, on behalf of all represented substitutes, requested the suspension of all pecuniary obligations arising from the lease agreement, including rent payments and the promotional and advertising fund, while the effects of the suspension of activities persist.
Judge Érico Rodrigues Vieira, in the context of urgent relief, understood the following:
(…) The advent of the pandemic, however, characterizes, in a concrete and unequivocal way, the unpredictability that legitimizes the contractual review in the form of art. 317 of the 2002 Civil Code, as well as the excessive burden for store owners (art. 478 of the 2002 Civil Code), imposing the intended review in an attempt to seek the maintenance of the contracts, which, moreover, even if reviewed under the terms herein, given the gravity of the situation and, especially, its harmful economic effects, did not necessarily succeed in being maintained. In casu, the maintenance of the current scenario, namely, the total lack of revenue for the replaced retailers, given the closure of the shopping mall demanded by order of the local Government due to the imperative need to contain the pandemic, and the continued enforceability of charges arising from the contracts those entered into with the shopping mall, especially rent and the advertising promotion fund, constitutes significant and unequivocal harm to those replaced by the plaintiff, satisfying the emergency requirement of art. 300 of the CPC, to which must be added the also indisputable evidence of the plausibility of the copyright, in light, it should be reiterated, of arts. 317 and 478 of the CC, all of which legitimizes the granting of the requested urgent relief. (…)” BRAZIL. Court of Justice of the State of Bahia. Common Civil Procedure No. 8034799-17.2020.8.05.0001. Plaintiff: Union of Commerce Store Owners of the State of Bahia. Defendant: Condominio Naciguat. Rapporteur: Judge Érico Rodrigues Vieira. Salvador, April 14, 2020.
Regarding the impacts of the pandemic on the contractual relationship between store owners and shopping centers, There are two schools of thought regarding the possibility of reducing the minimum rent to be paid, since in this period of inactivity, in general, there is no need to talk about percentage rent, calculated based on a percentage of sales recorded (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
The first current understands the application of the theory of unpredictability and excessive burden, applying contractual review (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020). The second current defends the application of art. 567 of the Civil Code, by which, if during the lease, there is deterioration of the rented property, without fault of the lessee, the latter will be entitled to request a proportional reduction in the rent, or contractual termination, if the property is no longer suitable for its intended purpose (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
Regarding the incidence of the theory of excessive burden, it is worth highlighting a recent decision by the 25th Civil Court of Brasília, of the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories, in case no. 0709038-25.2020.8.07.0001, which granted a request for preliminary relief to authorize a store owner to suspend the payment of the minimum rent and amounts related to the promotion and advertising fund, in the context of the new coronavirus pandemic (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
In this sense, the coronavirus may lead, due to a force majeure situation, to the termination of contractual obligations or the suspension of the effects of default, in the case of temporary delay, since the circumstances create a situation in which the debtor cannot fulfill the contractual obligation. Each case must be analyzed according to its particularities, taking into account all the specific elements that comprise it, and there is no standard response to resolve cases like this.
The process of interpreting the effects of the novel coronavirus on contractual relationships does not lead to a single outcome. Indeed, depending on the composition of interests affected and the specific contractual program under analysis, the classification of the pandemic legal fact will vary. Thus, in contracts with continued or deferred performance, the pandemic, while sometimes not preventing performance, can make it extremely burdensome to the debtor, justifying contractual review or termination, or even the spontaneous renegotiation of the agreement by the parties, in the name of the principle of business continuity. In other agreements, its consequences may simply result in the suspension of performance of the contract's purpose, postponing performance obligations to a later date. and in many other cases, the legal fact of the pandemic will cause the supervening impossibility of executing the service, configuring a fortuitous event or force majeure, capable of, through the breaking of the causal link, removing the effects of absolute non-fulfillment or delay of the debtor in the event of non-compliance with the obligation (MONTEIRO FILHO; ROSENVALD; DENSA, 2020).
Rosenvald (2020) warns that force majeure should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in cases of breach of obligations. For example, activities where there were government restrictions, preventing the performance of the activities, are more likely to justify breach of contract.
3. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
In short, the research undertaken in this article reveals the complexity and relevance of the Theory of Unforeseen Events in the turbulent scenario created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The detailed analysis demonstrates that legislation and legal doctrine offer mechanisms for contractual adaptation and review in the face of extraordinary and unpredictable events, such as those caused by the global health crisis.
It is clear that contract law, although traditionally guided by the binding force of agreements (pacta sunt servanda), must be flexible enough to accommodate situations of force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances, maintaining balance and equity in contractual relationships. The pandemic, as an event of unprecedented magnitude, tested the limits of this flexibility, requiring legal practitioners to apply legal principles prudently and contextually.
The cases analyzed illustrate the diversity of situations and the need for a case-by-case approach, where the application of the Theory of Unforeseen Events and the rules regarding excessive burden must take into account the particularities of each contractual relationship affected by the pandemic. While some situations require review or even contractual termination, others can be resolved through negotiation and mutual adaptation by the parties involved.
Furthermore, the distinction between internal and external fortuitous events gains particular relevance, directly influencing liability and the possibilities for contract review. Recent case law provides an overview of how courts are addressing these issues, highlighting a tendency toward moderation and balance, seeking to preserve both legal certainty and contractual fairness in times of uncertainty.
Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic not only challenged society and the global economy but also provided fertile ground for reflection and development of contract law, underscoring the importance of principles such as good faith, the social function of contracts, and the need to adapt legal norms to exceptional circumstances. The legacy of this turbulent period, therefore, includes a rich jurisprudence and a more refined doctrine on the interplay between contracts, unforeseen circumstances, and crises, contributing to the continued evolution of contract law in its quest for a balance between stability and justice.
REFERENCES
BAPTISTA, Luiz Olavo. Risk in international transactions: legal issues and (defense) instruments. In Public Law Review, No. 66. São Paulo: Malheiros, April/June 1983, p.269.
BDINE JR., Hamid Charaf. In Annotated Civil Code. Coordinator: Minister Cezar Peluso. 4th Edition. Revised and Updated. 2010. Pg. 412.
BRAZIL. Civil Code: Law No. 10,406/2002. Official Gazette of the Union. Available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/L10406.htm . Accessed on: May 5, 2020.
BRAZIL. Economic Freedom Law: Law 13.874/2019. Official Gazette of the Union. Available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/lei/L13874.htm . Accessed on: May 6, 2020.
BRAZIL. Court of Justice of the State of Bahia. Common Civil Procedure No. 8034799-17.2020.8.05.0001. Plaintiff: Union of Commerce Store Owners of the State of Bahia. Defendant: Condominio Naciguat. Rapporteur: Judge Érico Rodrigues Vieira. Salvador, April 14, 2020.
CASTRO, Thiago Soares Castelliano Lucena de. Coronavirus and the theory of unpredictability: contracts in Civil Law. Consultor Jurídico, [sl], April 18, 2020. Available at: https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-abr-18/lucena-castro-coronavirus-teoria-imprevisao. Accessed on: May 4, 2020.
DINIZ, Maria Helena. Annotated Civil Code. 15th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2010. p.342.
LOPES, Geraldo Evangelista. The pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus clauses and their legal consequences. Âmbito Jurídico, [sl], December 1, 2017. Available at: https://ambitojuridico.com.br/cadernos/direito-civil/as-clausulas-pacta-sunt-servanda-e-rebus-sic-stantibus-e-suas-consequencias-juridicas/ . Accessed on: May 5, 2020.
MONTEIRO FILHO, Carlos Edison do Rêgo; ROSENVALD, Nelson; DENSA, Roberta. Coronavirus and Civil Liability: Contractual and Extra-contractual Impacts. [S. l.]: Editora Foco, 2020. ISBN 978-65-5515-069-8.
RIPERT, Georges. The moral rule in civil obligations. Campinas: Bookseller, 2009.
ROSENVALD, Nelson. The Impacts of Coronavirus on Contractual and Aquilian Liability. Nelson Rosenvald, [sl], March 6, 2020. Available at: https://www.nelsonrosenvald.info/single-post/2020/03/06/OS-IMPACTOS-DO-CORONAVIRUS-NA-RESPONSABILIDADE-CONTRATUAL-E-AQUILIANA . Accessed on: May 4, 2020.
TARTUCE, Flávio. Manual of civil law: single volume / Flávio Tartuce. 10th ed. rev., updated. and expanded. – Rio de Janeiro: Forense; São Paulo: MÉTODO, 2020.
Português do Brasil 
English