Post by account_disabled on Mar 14, 2024 10:19:00 GMT
Article 51, item IV, of the Consumer Protection Code (Law 8,078/90), states that clauses that establish obligations considered unfair, abusive, that place the consumer at an exaggerated disadvantage, or that are incompatible with good faith, are null and void. or equity.
Therefore, the 16th Civil Chamber of the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice upheld a ruling that condemned a bank to compensate a company for preventing the immediate closure of its bank account, causing it to default due to a debit entry after the date of the end of the contractual relationship. The plaintiff company will receive R$10,000 as compensation for moral damages. The decision is in line with Precedent 227 of the Superior Court of Justice, which states that ''legal entities may suffer moral damage''.
In the debt annulment action, combined with a request for contract cancellation and off-balance sheet compensation, the author said that she requested the account to be closed on March 22, 2016. In the act, she made the payment to cancel the account, in the amount of R$ 712.75. However, 30 days later, she was surprised by the notification of registration with Serasa, referring to a debt arising from the canceled account, in the amount of R$ 534.28, posted on March 31st. The amount corresponds to just over 1% of the special check made available by the ''PJ Master Package'', which was not contracted.
Cited by the Judicial Court of the B2B Lead District of Ivoti, the bank filed a response. He stated that the act of canceling the account was irregular, as one of the clauses of the contract between bank and customer provides for a 30-day period for calculating assets. And, during this period, it was agreed that the bank account must remain open. He claimed that the amounts charged were due, as all fees were listed in the contract and provided for in the bank's tables.
Sentence
Judge Larissa de Moraes Morais partially granted the action. She declared the non-existence of the debt that led to the negative registration with Serasa and ordered the defendant to pay R$5,000 in moral reparation to the plaintiff company.
The judge noted that, on the date of the request to cancel the account, there was a negative balance of R$712.75. And that on the same day the author made a bank transfer worth R$800 to the account, leaving him with a credit of R$87.25.
Citing the clause that regulates contractual termination, he highlighted that, after communication from the customer, it was up to the bank to provide a statement of the commitments to be fulfilled until the effective closure of the account, detailing the types and amounts to be paid. In this specific case, the bank did not prove that it had provided a statement of these commitments, which was its burden in the process.