Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
09/29/2016
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
transparent image
Judgment by Judge David de Oliveira Gomes Filho, the 2nd Court of Diffuse Rights, Collective and Individual Homogeneous Campo Grande, condemned a hypermarket to the payment of R $ 1,000,000.00, as a collective moral damages, for failing to offer products marketed in their establishment. The value will revert to the State Fund for the Defense of Consumer Rights. The judgment also ruled that the company has an obligation not to offer products displayed on the shelves with divergence between the price of gondola / tag and the reading bar / box, under penalty of a fine of $ 100.00 per unit of product exposed in shelf, to be allocated to the injured consumer.
It will be up to consumers to prove that fall under the sentence by the purchase invoice presentation compared to a pamphlet or photograph of the product price the lowest.
It was filed by the State Prosecutor, after reporting a consumer in the store had many products with price differences. Subsequently, at the request of MP, Procon held on 22 April 2013 an inspection at the store and found irregularities mentioned by the consumer, which caused the tax assessment.
In its defense, the store complained of unconscionability on the application for imposition of fines, as there was no guile and no bad faith on the small differences between the advertised price of certain products and those recorded in the box. It also claims that there was no moral damages and the amount of compensation is exorbitant. Finally, the defendant requested the dismissal of the action, however, if convicted, the damage extension stay limited to Campo Grande.
In analyzing the case, the judge noted that the errors are constant offers publications, with many discrepancies between announced prices and the price charged to the consumer at the time of making the payment. The judge also said it would be up to the store to check for errors and try to solve as quickly as possible, which did not occur. "The hypermarket itself admits that there is a divergence, as denoting the defense presented, however, says there is no malice or bad faith conduct in this," said the judge.
Thus, the magistrate concluded that the defendant's arguments do not deserve to prosper. "If the error or fraud is noticed only after the discomfort and annoyance is even greater, because besides the feelings already mentioned, consumers feel betrayed your confidence. And for those who do not even realize the mistake is accomplished to the benefit of the company, an illegal advantage to the detriment of consumers and competitors themselves who shall ensure the regularity of their negotiating shares at just charging the advertised price. It is in this case of unfair competition. "
Appeal the decision.
Case No. 0823590-72.2014.8.12.0001
Source: TJMS
To access the TJMS site, click here.
Our news are taken in full of our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typographical errors.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.