1. Home
  2. / Legislation and Law
  3. / Judge Denies Termination of Million-Dollar Contract in Barueri: Investors Purchased 14 Properties and Now Owe Over R$ 300,000
Reading time 3 min of reading Comments 0 comments

Judge Denies Termination of Million-Dollar Contract in Barueri: Investors Purchased 14 Properties and Now Owe Over R$ 300,000

Published on 27/09/2025 at 16:56
Em Barueri, juiz negou rescisão de contrato de investidores que compraram 14 imóveis e agora devem mais de R$ 300 mil, mantendo a validade do acordo.
Em Barueri, juiz negou rescisão de contrato de investidores que compraram 14 imóveis e agora devem mais de R$ 300 mil, mantendo a validade do acordo.
  • Reação
  • Reação
  • Reação
  • Reação
  • Reação
  • Reação
27 pessoas reagiram a isso.
Reagir ao artigo

Investors Purchased 14 Properties for Rental Purposes, but the Decision of the 3rd Civil Court Dismissed Allegations of Irregularities.

A recent ruling in Barueri (SP) brought to light the controversy regarding the application of the Consumer Defense Code in large-scale business transactions. The case involves two investors who purchased 14 properties in a hotel development, but sought annulment of the contract citing structural issues.

According to ConJur, Judge André Frederico de Sena Horta of the 3rd Civil Court denied the request and concluded that it was a relationship of investment, of a civil and business nature, and not consumer-related. As a result, the plaintiffs remain obligated to pay over R$ 300 thousand in overdue installments and fees.

Why the CDC Wasn’t Applied

The central point of the ruling was the differentiation between consumer contracts and investment contracts. Since the buyers admitted that the goal was to rent the properties to tourists, the relationship was classified as business-oriented. In this type of transaction, there is no automatic consumer protection against contractual clauses, with what was agreed upon by the parties prevailing.

The construction companies also emphasized that the development was regularized and safe, rejecting any possibility of construction defects. Furthermore, they filed a counterclaim to ensure the collection of the debt accumulated by the investors.

Termination vs. Rescission: What Was at Stake

The judge highlighted the distinction between contract termination and contract rescission. While termination occurs when there are defects in the contract or flaws justifying its nullity, rescission is an act of mere withdrawal. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged safety flaws, but the technical report proved there were no irregularities.

In practice, the magistrate concluded that the investors sought to withdraw from the deal due to regret, not due to any real defects in the work. Since the contract provided for clauses of irrevocability and unretractability, there was no legal basis to accept the unilateral withdrawal.

The Weight of the Technical Expertise

One of the determining factors was the conducting of an engineering audit to verify the alleged problems with the diesel oil storage tanks of the generators. The report conclusively stated that there was no risk of explosion or violation of technical standards, dismantling the main thesis of the lawsuit.

Without evidence of irregularities, the judge dismissed any liability from the construction companies and upheld the full validity of the contract.

Consequences for Investors

With the ruling, the investors remain bound by the contract and will have to pay the debt of R$ 300 thousand, in addition to continuing to meet future obligations. The case reinforces the importance of understanding that large-scale contracts made with profit intent do not enjoy the same protections applicable to regular consumers.

Experts point out that decisions like this should serve as a warning to those looking to invest in real estate as a revenue strategy. The contract needs to be analyzed carefully, as irrevocability clauses drastically limit the possibility of withdrawal.

The sentence in Barueri highlights how the Justice system differentiates between business contracts and consumer contracts and emphasizes the validity of contractual clauses in million-dollar investments. For investors, the lesson is that unmotivated withdrawals rarely find judicial support.

And you, do you believe that investors should have more flexibility to break million-dollar contracts when they feel harmed?

Or do you think the judge’s decision was correct in maintaining contractual rigidity? Share your opinion in the comments; we want to hear different views on this case.

Inscreva-se
Notificar de
guest
0 Comentários
Mais recente
Mais antigos Mais votado
Feedbacks
Visualizar todos comentários
Maria Heloisa Barbosa Borges

Falo sobre construção, mineração, minas brasileiras, petróleo e grandes projetos ferroviários e de engenharia civil. Diariamente escrevo sobre curiosidades do mercado brasileiro.

Share in apps
0
Adoraríamos sua opnião sobre esse assunto, comente!x