One of the major discussions surrounding the complex theme of civil prescription in Brazilian law is that regarding the statute of limitations for contractual discussion, even though the Civil Code is almost 20 years old, it is still possible to find discussions about which term is applied.

Prescription is defined by Pontes de Miranda as “the exception that someone has, against what he has not exercised, for some time, that some fixed legal rule, his claim or action”. The purpose of the prescription institute is to give certainty to legal relations, seeking, in a certain way, social security.

Civil Code of 2002, which brought apparently conflicting and overlapping rules for the limitation periods for contractual and non-contractual obligations, the main point of the discussion revolving around whether, for purposes of Contractual discussion, the limitation period would be that of the general rule established by article 205 of the Civil Code, of 10 years, or if the triennial prescription established in Article 206, § 3 would apply.

Although it is peaceful in legislation and jurisprudence to apply the three-year statute of limitations for cases with a claim based on non-contractual liability, the argument that Article 206, paragraph 3, V would apply for contractual purposes still used Article 206

often actions that discuss contractual liability bring liability for civil reparation, a situation rightly provided for in Article 206, § 3, V

After years of legislative uncertainty, it fell to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to standardize the discussions about the deadline for contractual discussion, pacifying the ten-year statutory limitation period for contracts.

The peacemaking Decision, among others of the Egregious Court, was handed down by the 2nd Section of the STJ, in the embargoes of divergence No. 1,280,825, by rapporteur of Min. Nancy Andrighi, which ended up ending the controversy between the two Private Law Classes of the STJ, establishing the understanding of applying the ten-year term to contractual liability.

This is because there would be no logic in determining different terms for the creditor to (i) demand the performance of the installment and (ii) another to claim the payment of losses and damages for non-compliance with the same instrument. In this sense, art. 205 of the Civil Code, by providing for the ten-year statutory limitation period in general, maintains the logical and systematic integrity of civil legislation.

The decision made by the STJ was to understand that the ten-year term applies in all cases in which the law has not set a shorter term and, consequently, to end the discussion on the applicability of the three-year term for civil reparation cases in the cases of default, being certain, and peaceful, that such legal hypothesis is only applicable to non-contractual cases.