And is that the right only have if there is "altera pars". Only have right if have two parts, have the opposite part, the law in the past was to say that was two parts, but today with the collective rights we have multi-lateral parts, but say to me with that case of the two that are the same, why the demon isn't the "altera pars"?
Also have for the Brazil and and think that at least the USA ins't the same the illicit enrichment. In the last case that haven't any code article that directily give that right, in the last isntance the part can say that the other part in reason of him got enriched at the spents of the other, a very weak example you land for someone your house and the person used and rent, already have in the law about, but is like that the person used the house and make money, you can go after what the money the person make with your house, why this clause is so hard to find an example? and is because is to got something that the legislator can't prevent the life is so fuller that can someone think in something that isn't in the law but have that very extensive clause. So say if the person receive something that make a good for the person, why the person isn't in debt?
Rute Bezerra de Menezes Gondim
Ps.: Multi-lateral the society, the comunity, the parents the kids the public ministry, the State, the city; students, the parents the professors the direction of the school, the city, the public ministry.
No comments:
Post a Comment