1. Home
  2. / Legislation and Law
  3. / Consumer was awarded R$ 10,000 after being led to believe that the apartment had a private yard, but discovered that the external area was common to the condominium.
Reading time 3 min of reading Comments 0 comments

Consumer was awarded R$ 10,000 after being led to believe that the apartment had a private yard, but discovered that the external area was common to the condominium.

Published on 09/06/2026 at 09:13
Be the first to react!
React to this article

TJ/SP upheld compensation of R$ 10,000 against the construction company after concluding that advertising and decorated apartment led the buyer to believe that the external area would be the unit’s private backyard

The 2nd Chamber of Private Law of TJ/SP upheld the conviction of a construction company to pay R$ 10,000 for moral damages to a consumer who purchased an apartment believing that the unit would have a private backyard, but received a property with a common external area of the condominium. This case was reported by Migalhas.

Advertising indicated private backyard as a differential of the property

The buyer stated that he decided to purchase the apartment influenced by the development’s advertising material, which highlighted the existence of a private backyard as a differential of the unit and an element of real estate appreciation.

The decorated apartment also featured the enclosed area, which, for the consumer, conveyed the idea of privacy and exclusivity. After receiving the property, he found that the external space was not part of the purchased unit.

External area was common to the condominium

In the lawsuit, the buyer claimed that there was a difference between the promised property and the one delivered. Besides the backyard, he pointed out discrepancies related to the ceiling height and internal finishing.

He requested compensation for material damages, due to the alleged devaluation of the asset, and reparation for moral damages.

The construction company denied any irregularity and argued that the contract, descriptive memorial, plan, and inspection report indicated the characteristics and measurements of the unit.

The company also stated that the external area was always common to the condominium and that there was no contractual promise of a private backyard.

TJ/SP upholds compensation of R$ 10,000

In the first instance, the action was partially upheld, with the construction company being ordered to pay R$ 10,000 for moral damages. The request for compensation for material damages was rejected.

At TJ/SP, the rapporteur, Judge Alvaro Passos, upheld the recognition of misleading advertising. The decision considered that the expert report pointed out discrepancies between the delivered apartment and the one presented in the advertising material and the decorated model.

For the rapporteur, these elements led the consumer to believe that the backyard belonged to the acquired unit.

Material damages were dismissed

Despite upholding the compensation for moral damages, the court maintained the dismissal of material damages. The expert report did not find any economic devaluation of the property.

The rapporteur’s understanding was accompanied by the 2nd Chamber of Private Law of TJ/SP.

This article was prepared based on information from TJ/SP, with data, numbers, and statements preserved as per the consulted material.

Sign up
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
most recent
older Most voted
Romário Pereira de Carvalho

I have published thousands of articles on recognized portals, always focusing on informative, direct content that provides value to the reader. Feel free to send suggestions or questions.

Share in apps
0
I'd love to hear your opinion, please comment.x