Post by anik4400 on Feb 22, 2024 2:26:04 GMT -5
Credit card called "consignable margin reserve" constituted fraud against the consumer. "Considering that the CEF remained inert and did not bring to the file any explanation for the issues raised by the court, I reverse the burden of proof and recognize the contracting of the credit card in the name of the author as fraudulent. Therefore, I declare the inexistence of a legal relationship between the parties and cancel the debts arising from the fraud perpetrated", stated the judge. In this case, the pensioner states that from 2018 Caixa began to deduct amounts of R$167.28, R$170.41, R$176.26 and R$184.15 from her account monthly as "Consignable Margin Reserve" (RMC), to which she claims she did not grant prior authorization. "It turns out that the plaintiff claims to have never taken out the aforementioned loans/credit cards, so that, in order not to be condemned in full as a result of the plaintiff's request, the financial institution should have proven in the records that the service was actually requested and contracted. by the applicant, which, I reaffirm, did not happen", added the judge. "CEF is responsible, regardless of fault, for defects relating to the services provided", he ruled.
In addition to Caixa, the INSS was also held responsible in the action, for having "acted negligently in the registration of the loan contract and in making the monthly discounts for the plaintiff's benefit", he added. "Both defendants respond objectively in this case." Compensation for moral damage was set by the judge at R$ 15 thousand, which must be divided by Caixa and INSS in equal proportions, in addition to double restit Vietnam WhatsApp Number ution of undue debts, which totals R$ 17,057.96, with interest and corrections to still be calculated. "In the case of an undue charge, the amounts of which reverted entirely in favor of CEF, this company must reimburse the plaintiff twice the amount that was unduly charged, in accordance with article 940 of the Civil Code and article 42, sole paragraph, of the Consumer Protection Code, plus interest and monetary correction, since we cannot speak of a justifiable mistake by the financial institution", he ruled.
Although the procedural law does not define a deadline for the judgment of an appeal, when it comes to a defensive appeal, unjustified delay due to circumstances beyond the control of the defense, when the defendant is arrested, constitutes illegal constraint. Nelson Jr./STF Minister pointed out illegal embarrassment in the delay in judging defensive appeal Nelson Jr./SCO/STF This was the understanding of Minister Rogério Schietti, of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), to grant Habeas Corpus in favor of a man held in preventive custody since September 2021. In this specific case, the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison for drug trafficking. The defense filed an appeal that was unanimously denied by the TJ-SP (São Paulo Court of Justice) and, subsequently, motions for declaration against the denial.
In addition to Caixa, the INSS was also held responsible in the action, for having "acted negligently in the registration of the loan contract and in making the monthly discounts for the plaintiff's benefit", he added. "Both defendants respond objectively in this case." Compensation for moral damage was set by the judge at R$ 15 thousand, which must be divided by Caixa and INSS in equal proportions, in addition to double restit Vietnam WhatsApp Number ution of undue debts, which totals R$ 17,057.96, with interest and corrections to still be calculated. "In the case of an undue charge, the amounts of which reverted entirely in favor of CEF, this company must reimburse the plaintiff twice the amount that was unduly charged, in accordance with article 940 of the Civil Code and article 42, sole paragraph, of the Consumer Protection Code, plus interest and monetary correction, since we cannot speak of a justifiable mistake by the financial institution", he ruled.
Although the procedural law does not define a deadline for the judgment of an appeal, when it comes to a defensive appeal, unjustified delay due to circumstances beyond the control of the defense, when the defendant is arrested, constitutes illegal constraint. Nelson Jr./STF Minister pointed out illegal embarrassment in the delay in judging defensive appeal Nelson Jr./SCO/STF This was the understanding of Minister Rogério Schietti, of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), to grant Habeas Corpus in favor of a man held in preventive custody since September 2021. In this specific case, the defendant was sentenced to five years in prison for drug trafficking. The defense filed an appeal that was unanimously denied by the TJ-SP (São Paulo Court of Justice) and, subsequently, motions for declaration against the denial.