Portuguese 
Spanish 
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.
-
Are Companies Required to Release Employees During Brazil’s World Cup Matches? Understanding Workers’ Rights
-
Brazilian Family’s Homeschooling Success Sparks International Debate: Daughters Read 30 Books Annually and Speak Multiple Languages
-
Piauí Governor Enacts Law Requiring State Contractors to Reserve Jobs for Former Inmates with Minimum Wage and Verification Before Payment
-
Providing Your Tax ID at Supermarkets: A Routine Step That Can Unlock Discounts and Rewards but Also Reveals Your Shopping Habits
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.
