Submitted by Tomas Barros Martins Comino Comino (tomascomino@hotmail.com) on 2015-03-31T21:56:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Versao UPLOAD.pdf: 1077138 bytes, checksum: 863caeac5a0a10d25b9351f92d298894 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Renata de Souza Nascimento (renata.souza@fgv.br) on 2015-03-31T22:14:18Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Versao UPLOAD.pdf: 1077138 bytes, checksum: 863caeac5a0a10d25b9351f92d298894 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-01T12:35:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Versao UPLOAD.pdf: 1077138 bytes, checksum: 863caeac5a0a10d25b9351f92d298894 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-06 / Firstly, the paper briefly describes the common law tradition, setting the duty to mitigate the loss into the context of its own. Then, the paper draws the general lines that identify the mitigation doctrine in common law jurisdictions. Attention is given to the justifications of the duty to mitigate the loss and the roles it plays, including in the cases subject to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). In its context, the duty to mitigate the loss is primarily justified by causation and functions as a limit to compensation; it is not a 'duty'; it is applicable to the plaintiff; reasonableness of the mitigation steps and reimbursement of expenses are essential features to the mitigation doctrine. Secondly, the paper studies the duty to mitigate the loss in Brazil, from selected works of commentators and from decisions of the Superior Court of Justice and various state courts. Research has shown that the duty to mitigate the loss, under the equivalent name of 'mitigation doctrine', entered into Brazil by the work of commentators but little reflected in court decisions. Deprived of this earlier influence, the duty to mitigate the loss returned to Brazil through an 'enunciado' of the Federal Council of Justice, submitted in a document whose content is subject to criticism in this work, especially on the matter of the close connection between the duty to mitigate the loss and good faith (in its objective sense). Once the Superior Court of Justice invoked the 'enunciado' and the document in which it is based to decide a specific case, the duty to mitigate the loss rapidly expanded in Brazil. In São Paulo, it has gained the status of principle and aphorism. In the Superior Court of Justice, it has been considered a sub-principle of good faith and has been applied to adjective and substantive criminal cases. Comparatively, the common law notion of the duty to mitigate the loss is quite different to the Brazilian notion of it. This work indicates these differences and concludes with a classification of the roles that the duty to mitigate the loss plays in Brazil and with a draft proposal aimed at modifying the current version of the 'enunciado' of the Federal Council of Justice. / Primeiramente, o trabalho descreve sinteticamente a tradição common law, inserindo o o duty to mitigate the loss em contexto próprio. Então, traça as linhas gerais que, naquele cenário, conformam o instituto. Atenção é dada aos fundamentos do duty to mitigate the loss e às funções por ele desempenhadas, inclusive nos casos subordinados à United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). No contexto próprio, o duty to mitigate the loss tem por fundamento primeiro a causation e funciona como um limitador do quantum indenizatório; não trata de um 'dever'; cabe ao demandante; tem na razoabilidade das medidas mitigadoras e no reembolso das despesas incorridas características essenciais. Em segundo lugar, a dissertação investiga o duty to mitigate the loss no Brasil, a partir da doutrina selecionada e de decisões do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e de diversos tribunais estaduais. As pesquisas demonstram que o duty to mitigate the loss, sob o nome de mitigation doctrine, ingressou no Brasil pela doutrina, mas desta forma repercutiu pouco nos tribunais. Desprovido desta influência doutrinária anterior, o duty to mitigate the loss retornou ao Brasil por meio de enunciado do Conselho da Justiça Federal, proposto em documento cujo conteúdo é objeto de reflexões neste trabalho, notadamente na questão da íntima relação entre o duty to mitigate the loss e a boa-fé objetiva. A partir do leading case no Superior Tribunal de Justiça, que adotou o enunciado e o documento que lhe serviu de proposta, o duty to mitigate the loss expandiu rapidamente no Brasil. Em São Paulo, foi alçado à princípio e brocardo. No Superior Tribunal e Justiça, foi considerado sub-princípio da boa-fé e aplicado em questões adjetivas e substantivas criminais. Comparativamente, o duty to mitigate the loss no Brasil guarda remotas semelhanças ao instituto homônimo da common law. Este trabalho aponta as diferenças entre os intitutos e concluí com a sistematização das funções que o duty to mitigate the loss desempenha no Brasil, formulando proposta para a reedição de enunciado do Conselho da Justiça Federal.