Estudo sobre a possibilidade de revisão do contrato aleatório por superveniente onerosidade excessiva de uma das partes contratantes em virtude de acontecimentos extraordinários e imprevisíveis. Mesmo diante de um posicionamento vacilante de vários teóricos a respeito desse tema, a tendência é a plena possibilidade da revisão e até mesmo a extinção do contrato aleatório por conta da superveniente e imprevista onerosidade excessiva ocorrida no curso do cumprimento da avença, à luz das modernas diretrizes do Direito Civil, sobretudo se considerada a necessidade de adequação do direito positivo às soluções que melhor se amoldem à estabilização das relações contratuais, de modo a evitar o desequilíbrio além da âlea contratada. De um ponto de vista criterioso, é plenamente possível prever situações que, no contrato aleatório, permitam e justifiquem evitar a perpetuação do ônus excessivo e nocivo imposto a uma das partes contratantes em razão de indesejáveis e imprevisíveis eventos supervenientes. / Study on the possibility of aleatory contract review for impracticability or supervening excessive burden of a contracting party by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable events. Even with an unsteady position of many theorists on this subject, the tendency is the full possibility of review and even the resolution of aleatory contract due to the supervening excessive burden or impracticability occurred in the course of fulfillment of the covenant, according to the guidelines of the modern civil law, especially when considering the need to adapt the positive law to the right solutions that are best conformed to the stabilization of contractual relations, in order to avoid the imbalance beyond the contracted alley. In an insightful perspective, it is fully possible to foresee situations that permit and justify, in an aleatory contract, to avoid the perpetuation of excessive and harmful burden imposed on a contracting party by reason ofthe occuffence of unwanted and unpredictable events.

Estudo sobre a possibilidade de revisão do contrato aleatório por superveniente onerosidade excessiva de uma das partes contratantes em virtude de acontecimentos extraordinários e imprevisíveis. Mesmo diante de um posicionamento vacilante de vários teóricos a respeito desse tema, a tendência é a plena possibilidade da revisão e até mesmo a extinção do contrato aleatório por conta da superveniente e imprevista onerosidade excessiva ocorrida no curso do cumprimento da avença, à luz das modernas diretrizes do Direito Civil, sobretudo se considerada a necessidade de adequação do direito positivo às soluções que melhor se amoldem à estabilização das relações contratuais, de modo a evitar o desequilíbrio além da âlea contratada. De um ponto de vista criterioso, é plenamente possível prever situações que, no contrato aleatório, permitam e justifiquem evitar a perpetuação do ônus excessivo e nocivo imposto a uma das partes contratantes em razão de indesejáveis e imprevisíveis eventos supervenientes. / Study on the possibility of aleatory contract review for impracticability or supervening excessive burden of a contracting party by virtue of extraordinary and unpredictable events. Even with an unsteady position of many theorists on this subject, the tendency is the full possibility of review and even the resolution of aleatory contract due to the supervening excessive burden or impracticability occurred in the course of fulfillment of the covenant, according to the guidelines of the modern civil law, especially when considering the need to adapt the positive law to the right solutions that are best conformed to the stabilization of contractual relations, in order to avoid the imbalance beyond the contracted alley. In an insightful perspective, it is fully possible to foresee situations that permit and justify, in an aleatory contract, to avoid the perpetuation of excessive and harmful burden imposed on a contracting party by reason ofthe occuffence of unwanted and unpredictable events.

L’aléa, véritable « cœur » du contrat d’assurance, ne finit pas de susciter les interrogations lorsqu’il s’agit de préciser plus techniquement son rôle, tout comme sa raison d’être. En première ligne se situe naturellement le débat relatif à la qualification des formes contemporaines d’assurance vie : ce dernier, haut lieu de controverse doctrinale depuis des années, ne s’est toujours pas apaisé malgré l’impressionnant nombre d’études consacrées au sujet. En parallèle, le thème de l’aléa dans les contrats fait également l’objet d’un vif regain d’intérêt, s’invitant dans les colloques et les ouvrages les plus récents. Plus que jamais, les notions de contrat d’assurance et de contrat aléatoire se retrouvent donc au cœur de la polémique. Et cette dernière peut aller bon train, tant le débat reste enfermé dans cette idée courante qu’un contrat est un acte nécessairement créateur d’obligations. Ainsi, l’on s’attache bien souvent à mettre en évidence le déséquilibre des obligations des parties (caractéristique des contrats aléatoires) avant de s’interroger sur son existence dans le contrat d’assurance. Mais cette approche obligationnelle de la structure contractuelle est-elle véritablement pertinente ? Ne devrait-on pas, au contraire, concevoir plus largement les effets de l’acte juridique, et consacrer juridiquement une idée somme toute assez commune dans le langage courant des praticiens : celle d’un transfert de risque ? A l’approche obligationnelle classique, exclusivement focalisée sur l’analyse des prestations des parties (paiement de la prime par le souscripteur ; règlement du sinistre voire couverture du risque par l’assureur), se substituerait ainsi une approche réelle, davantage axée sur le transfert de risque opéré entre les parties. Cette approche réelle, à bien des égards séduisante par rapport à l’approche obligationnelle, permettrait ainsi de porter – entre autres – un regard différent sur la problématique inhérente aux formes contemporaines d’assurance vie. / Hazard is well known for being at the heart of the insurance contract. Nonetheless, it does not stop raising questions about its precise role and raison d’être. Firstly, the debate deals with the qualification of contemporary forms of life insurance; Mecca of doctrinal controversy for years, it still remains topical in spite of the impressive number of studies. Meanwhile, contingency is of intense interest in civil contract law, as well as subject to recent seminars and latest books. More than ever, the notions of insurance contract and of aleatory contract appear as being the “core” issues of a controversy which keeps going well, because the debate may be limited by the idea that a contract is necessarily an act that creates obligations. Thus, the imbalance between the parties’ obligations - characteristic of aleatory contracts – is often highlighted before questioning its existence in the insurance contract. However, it may be wondered as whether to know if such an “obligational” approach of the contract is truly relevant. On the contrary, shouldn’t we consider the effects of the contract through a wider point of view, in order to admit – legally – a quite common idea in everyday language: the transfer of risk? Unlike the obligational approach which is solely focused on the performances of both parties (premium paid by the taker; compensation paid out of the claim or even risk covered by the insurer), that “real” approach would be more focused on the risk that is transferred between the contracting parties. Such a real approach, which seems to be highly more attractive than the obligational one, would offer - among others - a different perspective within the debate that is inherent to the contemporary forms of life insurance.