Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Decision of the Justice of São Paulo Determined the Termination of the Contract and the Payment of Compensation After Noting Hidden Defects in the Engine of a Used Car That Presented Serious Defects Shortly After Purchase, According to the Portal Migalhas.
According to the Portal Migalhas, a consumer from São Paulo Won in Court the Right to Receive Compensation of R$ 5,000 and the Refund of Amounts Paid for a Used Car That Presented Hidden Defects in the Engine a Few Days After Purchase. The Decision Was Made by Judge Henrique Maul Brasilio de Souza, of the 3rd Civil Court of São Miguel Paulista, Recognizing That the Vehicle Became Unfit for Use, Constituting a Failure in the Provision of Service.
According to the case, the automobile Was Acquired with a Down Payment and Bank Financing, but Presented Serious Structural Problems Shortly After Purchase. The Judge Understood That, Even Being a Used Car and Having High Mileage, the Defects Exceeded the Expected Natural Wear, Making the Vehicle Inadequate for Circulation and Significantly Depreciating It.
The Case and the Judicial Decision
After the Emergence of the Defects, the Buyer Took Action in Court Requesting the Cancellation of the Contract and the Reimbursement of Amounts Paid.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The Technical Inspection Attached to the Case Confirmed “Nonconformity” in the Vehicle, Indicating That the Repairs Made Previously Were Poorly Executed and Did Not Ensure the Safety or Proper Operation of the Engine.
The Judge Recognized That There Was a Defect in Quality That Compromised the Essential Function of the Car for the Transportation of People and Goods and Determined That the Sales Contract Should Be Terminated.
Additionally, He Ordered the Seller to Refund All Amounts Paid, Including the Down Payment and Financing Installments, and to Pay Compensation for Moral Damages.
Limited Liability of the Bank and Absence of Defense by the Seller
During the Proceedings, the Bank Responsible for the Financing Argued That It Could Not Be Held Liable, Since It Only Financed the Operation and Did Not Participate in the Sale of the Automobile.
The Judge Accepted the Argument, Emphasizing That the Financial Institution Has No Direct Link to the Supplier and Is Not Responsible for Defects in the Product.
The Seller, In Turn, Was Personally Cited but Did Not Present a Defense, Which Reinforced the Understanding That There Was Exclusive Responsibility for the Sale of the Defective Car.
The Judge Highlighted That the Inertia of the Supplier Aggravated the Consumer’s Loss, Who Had to Resort to the Judiciary to Ensure Refund and Financial Compensation.
The Legal Basis and the Recognition of Moral Damages
In the Sentence, the Judge Noted That the Mechanical Problem Exceeded Any Wear Compatible with Normal Use of the Vehicle and Constituted Severe Failure in Quality.
He Applied Article 18 of the Consumer Protection Code (CDC), Which Obligates the Supplier to Repair or Replace Products That Present Hidden Defects That Prevent Regular Use.
Furthermore, the Judge Highlighted the Concept of “Consumer Productive Deviation”, a Situation in Which the Buyer Loses Time and Resources Trying to Resolve a Problem Caused by the Supplier.
This Frustration and the Inconvenience Faced Justified the Condemnation to Pay R$ 5,000 for Moral Damages.
Return of the Car and Closure of the Dispute
The Decision Also Determined That the Parties Agree on the Return of the Vehicle, at the Seller’s Expense, Under Penalty of New Judicial Deliberation.
The Sentence Considered That the Fairer Solution Would Be to Restore the Balance Between the Parties, Returning the Buyer to the State Prior to Purchase and Avoiding New Losses.
Thus, the Case Closes a Common Dispute in the Used Car Market, Where Hidden Defects Often Only Appear After the Vehicle’s Delivery, Generating Conflicts About Who Should Bear the Cost of Repairs or Refunds.
The Decision Reinforces the Understanding That The Consumer Should Not Solely Bear Losses Caused by Hidden Defects in Used Vehicles, Even If the Car Shows Signs of Wear.
For the Justice, the Supplier Has the Duty to Ensure That the Product is Suitable for Use and Safe for the Buyer.
And You, Do You Think the Decision That Determined the Refund of Money and Compensation to the Buyer is Fair? Or Do You Believe That, When Buying a Used Car, the Risk Should Be Entirely Assumed by the Consumer? Leave Your Opinion in the Comments, We Want to Hear from Those Who Have Been Through Similar Situations.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!