Post by account_disabled on Jan 30, 2024 11:54:08 GMT
As the input transportation contract does not characterize a consumer relationship, disputes surrounding a input transportation contract cannot be resolved based on the rules of the Consumer Protection Code. With this understanding, the ministers of the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice ruled out the application of the code in a case that involved the transport of automotive parts from China for exhibition at a fair in Brazil. In the case analyzed, the Court of Justice of Paraná judged the request for compensation for the loss of merchandise, applying the CDC rules, as it understood that the transport contract was distinct (another legal relationship) from the main contract, which was the purchase of the parts. by a Brazilian company together with the Chinese company.
According to the reporting minister, Paulo de Buy Phone Number List Tarso Sanseverino, the court of origin must issue a new ruling, without applying the CDC rules to resolve the case. The minister explained that the STJ's jurisprudence, after the institution of the code, adopted the finalist theory in defining consumer relations, starting to consider the final destination of the product or service. “The condition of final recipient of a good or service constitutes the main limitation established by the legislator for establishing the concept of consumer and, consequently, for the incidence of the CDC as a special law”, stated the rapporteur.
Sanseverino recalled that the STJ's jurisprudence allows for flexibility in the application of the finalist theory, in cases where the vulnerability of the professional consumer towards the supplier is noted. However, in the appeal being judged, this mitigation was not even considered, as the company that filed the lawsuit did not claim vulnerability before the defendant. For the minister, it is clear in this case that the parts constituted inputs for the buyer, which deviates from the typical consumption relationship provided for in the CDC. “Since the cargo transported is an input, the contract signed for the transportation of this input is linked to this destination, with no need to inquire about the economic destination of the transport service”, he said, adding that there are STJ judgments that have already defined that “the input transport contract is not characterized as a consumer relationship”.
According to the reporting minister, Paulo de Buy Phone Number List Tarso Sanseverino, the court of origin must issue a new ruling, without applying the CDC rules to resolve the case. The minister explained that the STJ's jurisprudence, after the institution of the code, adopted the finalist theory in defining consumer relations, starting to consider the final destination of the product or service. “The condition of final recipient of a good or service constitutes the main limitation established by the legislator for establishing the concept of consumer and, consequently, for the incidence of the CDC as a special law”, stated the rapporteur.
Sanseverino recalled that the STJ's jurisprudence allows for flexibility in the application of the finalist theory, in cases where the vulnerability of the professional consumer towards the supplier is noted. However, in the appeal being judged, this mitigation was not even considered, as the company that filed the lawsuit did not claim vulnerability before the defendant. For the minister, it is clear in this case that the parts constituted inputs for the buyer, which deviates from the typical consumption relationship provided for in the CDC. “Since the cargo transported is an input, the contract signed for the transportation of this input is linked to this destination, with no need to inquire about the economic destination of the transport service”, he said, adding that there are STJ judgments that have already defined that “the input transport contract is not characterized as a consumer relationship”.