The argument of this paper focus on a critical analysis of the effects recognized to the termination for default. It questions some of them, i.e., the retroactivity and the rules applicable to this institution. The paper pretends to show that there is a gap to fill and this can be made by general principles of civil law. Specifically, the principle of unjust enrichment. This solution is according with the current view that sees resolution as a remedy.
|Translated title of the contribution||A critical review of the termination for default's effects and the proposal of a new solution|
|Number of pages||51|
|Journal||Ius et Praxis|
|State||Published - 1 Jan 2016|