One of the questions that is then taken to the Judiciary is the discussion on the form of payment, and especially the indemnity, rural producers operating in the agroindustrial branch, that is, of those who work in partnership directly with the industry, within the production chain. The contractual relationship between the rural producer and the industry, in this case, constitutes a civil partnership, in which on one side is the owner of the rural property with facilities for the creation and fattening of animals and, on the other hand, The industry itself producing foods of animal origin.

rule, the rural producer receives the raw material and industry inputs and, from there, within its ownership, with the use or not of other workers, the creation and fattening of animals. Hiring is bound to lots, as well as your payment. That is, the relationship of such parts is quite different from that relationship that the rural producer, property owner, has with its own workers, or employees, or renters, among others.

Despite this, the rural producer often tries, mistakenly, to focus on that contract the status of the Earth (Law no. 4,504 of 1964) and its regulatory decree (n. 59.566 of 1966). Some decisions made by courts of justice in the country have sometimes focused such a regression, removing the incidence of civil law.

in 2007, with the advent of Law no. 11,443 which altered provisions of the Statute of the Earth, was expressed in the law that agroindustrial partnership contracts (poultry and pigs) would be governed by specific law, or categorically, the incidence of said status (§ 5 of Article 96) .

In any case, the Civil Code, as a general rule, was incident for the hiring between the rural producer and the agroindustrial industry. In this context, since May 2016 there is a specific regulation for integrated production contracts: Law no. 13,288. This law is effectively dealing with the integrated production contract involving agricultural production, livestock, extractive, or poultry. However, in expressly describing related activities, it does not make any reference to poultry production.

In any case, although the new rule does not mention to poultry production, the status of the Earth is not applicable to the rural producer's relationship with agroindustry, as explained above. Both is true that the Superior Court of Justice, through its fourth class, in a recent decision (Special Appeal n. 865132) on contractual termination (if applicable to that established in the Contract of the Parties - Society Industrial Businesswoman of the Agroindustrial Branch and the producer rural - or that of the Earth Statute) was categorical in stating that in the partnership contracts for the creation of animals (in the case of such process, poultry and pigs) do not focus on the rules of land status.

Thus, there is apparently settled such a question and, in any attempt to implement the quoted status for rural partnership contracts for agroindustrial production (between the producer and the industry), the decision of the Superior Court of Justice is applicable jurisprudential guidance.