It should be noted that the highlighted rule underwent a substantial

[mahbubamim077]

In the previous text, therefore, priority was given to the maxim that prohibits contradictory behavior ( nemo venire contra factum proprium non potest ), based on objective good faith, which ended up being removed in the final text of the legal norm currently in force. Under the law currently in force, there is no such “prior choice” by the legislator, and it is always necessary to observe the precepts of public order, according to the circumstances of the specific case.

Precisely in the sense of admitting the allegation of invalidity due to simulation by the trader himself, a recent ruling by the Superior Court of Justice cites the doctrinal position of the first co-author of this text, according to which “with the advent of the Civil Code/02, the rule contained in art. 104 of the Civil Code/1916 was overcome, according to which, in the simulation, the bulk sms colombia simulators could not allege the defect against each other, since no one could benefit from their own torpor. Art. 167 of the Civil Code/02 raised simulation as a cause for nullity of the legal transaction. Since simulation is a cause for nullity of the legal transaction, it can be alleged by one of the parties against the other. Precedents and Doctrine.

In the same vein, state judgments are found. Concluding in this way, the Court of Justice of Paraná ruled: “There is no obstacle to the allegation of the existence of simulation by the contracting party itself, since the simulated legal transaction is null and void by operation of law. It is possible for the simulator itself to give rise to the occurrence of the social defect. Intelligence of Statement No. From the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, merely to illustrate and without prejudice to many other summaries with the same conclusion: