Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
01/28/2013
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
Although forbidden by the Consumer Code, accumulates practice complaints in court and Procons
RIO - Karlos Gusthavo Tripeno sought to Santander bank hire a payroll loan. To the surprise of the consumer, the employee heard of the institution, to have access to credit, would be required to have insurance. However, besides the product not interested, can become expensive in the R$ 600 value of funding. Aware that he was a victim of bundling, a practice prohibited by the Consumer Defense Code (CDC), tried to argue with the bank. It did not help. Outraged and embarrassed, gave up the operation and reported the case to the Ombudsman institution and the Consumer Protection section of the GLOBE.
For defense entities, Tripeno is an example of how the client should proceed to confront this prohibited practice, but continues to accumulate in organs consumer complaints and actions in court.
- The Brazilian needs to learn the boycott to preserve their right to choose - opines the chief adviser of Procon-SP, Renan Ferraciolli.
Under clause I of Article 39 of the CRC, the tying is characterized by two different illegal forms of conditioning. Or by tying the sale of goods or services to buy other items, or by imposing minimum amount of product to be purchased. And, although it is more common in the financial sector - the Procon-SP were recorded 228 complaints about tying in 2012, with 118 of them involving banks - is present in different situations everyday.
Decision of Supreme Court directs consumers
Sandwiches come with that toy sales package tourism tied to insurance, cinema that only allows the consumption of popcorn and goodies purchased at own convenience. All these cases can characterize tying. In recent years, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) gave decision favorable to lawsuits filed by consumers in similar situations (see box). The jurisprudence of the court does not provide answers to all cases, but guides the consumer choice and may help guide decisions in other similar instances.
- Already pacified the Judiciary understanding about the abusiveness of tying. The decisions of our superior court come to meet this consensus. The consumer is increasingly confident that their rights, when not observed, may be pleaded in court with a great chance of success - clarifies the lawyer specializing in Consumer Law Ronaldo Gotlib.
To the chief adviser of Procon-SP, the main reason for financial institutions despontarem when it comes to tying are the high sales goals of the bank:
- With aggressive sales targets in relation to insurance contracts and cards, many banks end attendants conditioned low interest rates on loans to insurance policies and credit cards.
Maria Ines Dolci, coordinator of institutional Protest, emphasizes that being well informed and know argue are fundamental to the consumer trying to get rid of a tying.
- If trade or service provider gives no choice, when he undertakes to acquire a package without offering the items separately, is tying - said Maria Ines.
The next step, complements Ferraciolli, Procon-SP, the supplier is to demonstrate that he is wrong:
- The law is on the side of the consumer, and all commerce is required to have a copy of the Code available. So just calmly pick up the client and the CDC show that the item I of Article 39 prohibits tying.
If, despite the arguments of the consumer, the company continues refusing to unbind a service or product from another, the recommendation is that consumers give up the business and make a complaint to defense agencies.
When contacted, the Brazilian Federation of Banks (Febraban) stressed that "Brazilian banks have been perfecting its system of customer service." And guides, case problem occurs with a bank, that dissatisfaction is manifested first manager of the agency itself, and then the entity, the site www.conteaqui.org.br.
Santander announces that "there is no obligation to hire any secure form of credit held by the bank." It also ensures that occurred with Tripeno "does not match the orientation transmitted to managers."
Rio prohibits sandwich with toy
A sales married is the most controversial sandwich with children's toy made by fast-food chains. On Nov. 8, entered into force in the Rio municipal law No. 5528, which prohibits the practice and provides fine on violators worth £ 2000, and can be doubled in case of repetition.
In 2010, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) determined the meeting in the Federal Court, the civil suits filed against the fast food chains Bob's, McDonald's and Burger King, because of the bundling of toys and snacks. According to the Supreme Court, in another civil action, the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) asks the Federal Court, which appointed the case to the 15th Civil Court of the Judicial Section of São Paulo, to condemn these three networks not to sell snacks for children with joint offer, and the offer is not for separate sale of gifts. A decision on the merits has not yet reached the Supreme Court.
McDonald's said that since 2006 the toys can be purchased separately, leaving the Happy Meal. Burger King says that, in compliance with municipal law, none of the chain restaurants in Rio has gifts or toys for sale along with their snacks, even separately, and that if similar laws are adopted in other regions, the company will comply with the legal determination. The Bob's reported that assesses the new legislation, along with sector entities, "later to adopt any measure."
Source: The Globe - Online
Our news are removed entirely from the sites of our partners. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typos.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.