The Company's seasonal activity, provided for in subsection e), paragraph 2 of article 140 of the Labor Code as a reason for contracting on a fixed-term basis, has been, given its complexity, widely discussed by doctrine and jurisprudence over the years. In the court decision to which reference will be made, the Supreme Court of Justice, contrary to what has been the main opinion (and was decided, in this case, by the courts of first and second instance), decided on the non-existence of seasonality in case of a company dedicated to river cruises, whose activity (mainly carried out between April and October of each year) depended on elements such as summer and agricultural seasons, tourist demand and administrative authorizations. The same judgment also decided on the inadmissibility of a global abdication remission in the event of an unlawful dismissal, on the grounds that the employee was not adequately informed about its possible effect, even if no defect of will or retraction was indicated or proven.