Post by account_disabled on Jan 25, 2024 9:55:17 GMT
From the Appeal Panels of the Courts. The Code establishes reduced deadlines for filing actions. For durable products, 90 days, for non-durable products, only 30. Such periods are even shorter than the warranty that manufacturers offer, usually one year. Regarding the scope of the Consumer Code to cases of planned obsolescence, there is no consolidated jurisprudence, with the majority of cases being judged to be unfounded. In fact, those judged hesitate to systematically determine reparations, fearing that the fact will result in an exaggerated invasion of the State in the free market economy or perhaps fearing opening the way for fraud.
Let’s look at some precedents: The 1st Civil Appeal Buy Phone Number List Panel of the Justice of Rio Grande do Sul upheld a ruling that dismissed an action for compensation for moral damages, in a conflict that involved a cell phone sent for repair consisting of replacing the display screen, based on the fact that the market did not offered more parts for replacement and planned obsolescence could not be attributed to the service provider (Civil Appeal 71005815428, Rapporteur José R. de Bem Sanhudo, j. 06/28/2016). The 3rd Civil Appeal Panel of the Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, examining an appeal against a ruling of unfoundedness in a case in which there was a migration from CDMA to GSM technology, with the plaintiff's intention of continuing with his device or that the defendant operator would provide a higher value than R$99.00 for its exchange, the Panel recognized planned obsolescence, but made it clear that “Although it is not immune to criticism, this way of functioning in the capitalist world is neither illicit nor illegal, so that the supplier cannot be compelled to respond to consumer complaints (Civil Appeal 71004731089, Rapporteur Cleber A.
The 1st Civil Appeal Panel of Paraná, judging an action in which a defect in a stove was invoked, rejected the thesis of decay because after 5 years, understanding that the supplier is responsible for the useful life of the asset and, recognizing planned obsolescence, judged the action to determine the restitution of the movable property is valid (Civil Appeal 0007460-97.2016.8.16.0182/0, Rapporteur Fernanda Geronasso, j. 02/15/2017). At the São Paulo Court of Justice, the 30th Chamber of Private Law denied compensation for material and moral damages in the purchase of a notebook. The Chamber rejected the thesis of expiry in 90 days, based on article 26, II and § 3 of the Consumer Code, setting the period at the 5 years provided for in the same statute, however, on the merits, it judged, by 2 votes against 1, the action is unfounded, because the problems would have occurred after the contractual guarantee (TJSP, Appeal with Review 0131734-22.2010.8.26.0100, rel. Marcos Ramos, j. 9/30/2015).
Let’s look at some precedents: The 1st Civil Appeal Buy Phone Number List Panel of the Justice of Rio Grande do Sul upheld a ruling that dismissed an action for compensation for moral damages, in a conflict that involved a cell phone sent for repair consisting of replacing the display screen, based on the fact that the market did not offered more parts for replacement and planned obsolescence could not be attributed to the service provider (Civil Appeal 71005815428, Rapporteur José R. de Bem Sanhudo, j. 06/28/2016). The 3rd Civil Appeal Panel of the Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, examining an appeal against a ruling of unfoundedness in a case in which there was a migration from CDMA to GSM technology, with the plaintiff's intention of continuing with his device or that the defendant operator would provide a higher value than R$99.00 for its exchange, the Panel recognized planned obsolescence, but made it clear that “Although it is not immune to criticism, this way of functioning in the capitalist world is neither illicit nor illegal, so that the supplier cannot be compelled to respond to consumer complaints (Civil Appeal 71004731089, Rapporteur Cleber A.
The 1st Civil Appeal Panel of Paraná, judging an action in which a defect in a stove was invoked, rejected the thesis of decay because after 5 years, understanding that the supplier is responsible for the useful life of the asset and, recognizing planned obsolescence, judged the action to determine the restitution of the movable property is valid (Civil Appeal 0007460-97.2016.8.16.0182/0, Rapporteur Fernanda Geronasso, j. 02/15/2017). At the São Paulo Court of Justice, the 30th Chamber of Private Law denied compensation for material and moral damages in the purchase of a notebook. The Chamber rejected the thesis of expiry in 90 days, based on article 26, II and § 3 of the Consumer Code, setting the period at the 5 years provided for in the same statute, however, on the merits, it judged, by 2 votes against 1, the action is unfounded, because the problems would have occurred after the contractual guarantee (TJSP, Appeal with Review 0131734-22.2010.8.26.0100, rel. Marcos Ramos, j. 9/30/2015).