A qualificação do lucro da intervenção:responsabilidade civil ou enriquecimento sem causa?

• Ano de defesa: 2010
• Autor(a) principal: Ferreira, Sérgio Ricardo Savi
• Orientador(a): Moraes, Maria Celina Bodin de
• Banca de defesa: Gama, Guilherme Calmon Nogueira da , Monteiro Filho, Carlos Edison do Rêgo , Mulholland, Caitlin Sampaio , Vieira, Patricia Ribeiro Serra
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito
• Departamento: Centro de Ciências Sociais::Faculdade de Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Intervenção; Lucros; Responsabilidade (Direito)
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Wrongful gains; Torts; Unjust enrichment
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/9221

The present study aims to demonstrate that when someone profits by interfering In: another person s rights without causing damage to the victim, or when the act does cause damage but the benefits so obtained are greater than the damage caused, tort rules alone are not enough, under Brazilian Law, as an efficient sanction for violation of an interest or right that deserves protection. Since the maIn: function of civil liability rules is to redress the damage, or make the victim whole, without an alternative remedy the wrongdoer would keep the benefits wrongfully obtained, fully In: the first case and In: the second case to the extent of the difference between the profits obtained and damages paid to the victim. I aim to show that the problem of benefits wrongfully obtained cannot be solved through tort rules alone, and some proposed measures In: this area, such as expansive interpretation of Article 944, sole paragraph, of the Civil Code, punitive damages and the so-called third method of quantifying damages should be rejected. As an alternative, I propose framing the question of benefits wrongfully obtained withIn: the rules on unjust enrichment, granting the victim the right to claim restitution of benefits obtained by the wrongdoer by interference In: the victim s assets or rights. I argue that the transfer of the benefits wrongfully obtained to the victim should be based on a balance of conflicting interests In: light of the Federal Constitution, with special attention to the solidarity principle and on the theory of the juridical allocation of assets. Besides this, I argue that Brazilian law does not require the victim to suffer any kind of damage In: order to apply unjust enrichment rules and that the subsidiarity rule does not prohibit the filing of joint claims, a tort one to remedy the damage (limited to the actual damage caused) and an unjust enrichment one to force restitution of any positive balance that remains with the wrongdoer after payment of damages. Finally, I intend to stimulate discussions on how to quantify the amount of restitution In: these cases and offer some criteria that can guide judges.