The out-of-court composition of liabilities: consensual instruments and their effectiveness

Not every liability requires a lawsuit to be resolved. The perception that a debt or a contractual controversy can only be settled before a court is, to a large extent, a cultural residue: the legal system offers a consistent repertoire of instruments that allow a liability to be composed out of court, often at lower cost, in less time and with preservation of the relationship between the parties. The choice among them, however, is not a matter of indifference: each figure has its own requirements, effects and risks, and the effectiveness of the composition depends on the technique with which it is formalized. This article surveys these instruments and the source of their enforceability.

Self-composition: a shift of axis

The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure consolidated a shift of method. In providing that the State shall promote, whenever possible, the consensual resolution of disputes, and that conciliation, mediation and other consensual methods be encouraged (article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3), the legislator moved the axis from hetero-composition, in which a third party decides, to self-composition, in which the parties themselves construct the solution. In this paradigm, the liability ceases to be exclusively the object of a judgment and becomes the subject matter of a legal transaction.

The instruments of substantive law

The Civil Code governs the ways in which an obligation is extinguished or modified without direct performance, and it is in them that the core of the composition lies:

Settlement (transação, articles 840 to 850) allows a dispute to be prevented or ended through mutual concessions; because it entails waiver, it is interpreted restrictively (article 843).

Novation (articles 360 to 367) replaces the prior obligation with another, extinguishing the first; it is worth noting that, absent a provision to the contrary, it also extinguishes the accessories and the guarantees of the novated debt (article 364).

Giving in payment (dação em pagamento, articles 356 to 359) operates when the creditor consents to receive a performance other than the one owed.

Set-off (compensação, articles 368 to 380) extinguishes, to the extent that they are equivalent, the reciprocal obligations between the same parties.

Remission (articles 385 to 388) is the forgiveness, whole or partial, of the debt.

Each of these institutes produces distinct effects upon guarantees, third parties and accessory obligations, which makes their choice a technical decision rather than a formality.

From negotiation to the enforceable instrument

What distinguishes a fragile agreement from an effective composition is its enforceability. Properly formalized, the arrangement dispenses with the cognition phase and enables, in the event of breach, direct enforcement. Article 784 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers this quality, among others, upon the private document signed by the debtor and two witnesses and upon the settlement instrument endorsed by the parties' attorneys or by a court-accredited conciliator or mediator. It is for this reason that an acknowledgment of debt accompanied by an installment plan, when correctly instrumented, constitutes an extrajudicial enforceable instrument, and not a mere promise: the creditor who holds it need not prove the debt, only enforce it.

The assisted methods: mediation and arbitration

When direct negotiation does not suffice, two paths open. Mediation (Law No. 13.140/2015) introduces an impartial third party who facilitates the dialogue without decision-making power, preserving the relationship and under a duty of confidentiality; the agreement it yields has the force of an enforceable instrument. Arbitration (Law No. 9.307/1996), by contrast, is a hetero-compositive route of a private nature: the arbitrator decides, and the arbitral award constitutes a judicial enforceable instrument (article 515, VII, of the Code of Civil Procedure). They are instruments of distinct vocation, mediation composes, arbitration adjudicates, and their suitability depends on the nature of the controversy.

The structured routes: over-indebtedness and out-of-court reorganization

For liabilities that transcend an isolated relationship, the system provides its own procedures. On the individual plane, the Consumer Protection Code, following Law No. 14.181/2021, governs the renegotiation of the debts of the over-indebted consumer in a global conciliation hearing, with a payment plan. On the corporate plane, out-of-court reorganization (Law No. 11.101/2005) allows the debtor to negotiate directly with its creditors a plan which, once the legal adherence quorum is reached and it is judicially confirmed, may extend its effects even to non-consenting creditors of the same class. They are instruments of composition, even though they depend on judicial confirmation to produce the entirety of their effects.

Faced with a liability, the pertinent question is rarely «litigation or settlement», but which instrument composes the concrete situation with the best balance among cost, time, preservation of the relationship and certainty of outcome. As each figure carries its own requirements and consequences, its selection and its correct formalization call for individualized analysis.

This text is informative in nature and does not constitute legal advice.

See the practice areas in detail →
FAQ