A development firm from Cascavel signed a contract for the acquisition and sale of a municipal plot on 08/12/2014 in Residencial Veneza in Cascavel.
The property was bought by a consumer of a development agency for R $ 103,869.36 with every installment of R $ 311.92 with an preliminary maturity date of 10/09/2014.
The development firm says the consumer has been in arrears since March 2018 and several other makes an attempt have been made to handle the continued drawback.
Consequently, the development firm demanded a court docket seizure of the property, termination of the sale and buy settlement, conviction of the customer within the quantity of 20% of the contract worth, reimbursement of 6% by mediation, cost of lease for damages for illegal possession.
dispute with the shopper
Within the contestation, the consumer argued that the worth of the declare didn’t correspond to any worth given by the development firm. He requested for the appliance of the Client Safety Code.
He said that in 2018 he had misplaced his job, which had modified his monetary scenario, and because of the unlawfulness practiced by the applicant through the contractual relationship, the installment values had turn out to be onerous because of an abuse by a development firm.
In a counterclaim, he sought recognition of abuses within the space of charging curiosity on remuneration and late cost, invalidity of the clauses and the typical charges utilized by Bacen. He requested that any overstated quantities through the conclusion of the contract and the issuing of all paperwork be reimbursed in duplicate.
The consumer made escrow deposits and fought to maintain the contract.
The deserves of the judgment had been handled as an motion for the contractual termination of the purchase-sale obligation with losses and damages associated to the acquisition of a municipal plot.
Within the contract signed between the events it was said that the contractual clauses are clear within the clarification of the cost technique and different peculiarities and proves that the transaction was made between the events.
Despite the fact that the quantities have been deposited in court docket, the consumer has been in arrears for years, so the default quantity is way greater than the quantity deposited.
Due to this fact, a contractual penalty of 20% (twenty %) of the contract worth (R $ 20,558.00) is due, in
favor of a development firm, with out grounds for its enchantment.
Relating to the brokerage fee, a refund is included within the occasion of termination, however there isn’t a proof within the report that the consumer has approved this, nor any reference that he has dedicated to a withdrawal. There’s additionally no fee receipt to be hooked up to the method.
The consumer’s delay resulted within the termination of the contract, and by remaining in possession of the property, it made it unimaginable for the development firm to train property rights, stopping it from benefiting from it.
After making an skilled opinion, the skilled discovered that the quantity paid by the consumer was R $ 16,436.84 and R $ 4,050.00 in escrow deposits.
It was discovered that the consumer was in delay with the installment of 08/06/2018 to the current, nonetheless, throughout this era the consumer used the property.
With regard to compensation for enhancements, within the occasion of the customer withdrawing from the contract, enhancements made with out the vendor’s specific consent, in addition to people who don’t have the required traits, won’t be eligible for compensation for enhancements.
It’s checked that the consumer has bought the property, made the mandatory enhancements to the toilet, laundry room, balcony and using flooring within the rooms in line with the experience. Such modifications would imply higher situations for the property, including worth. The dearth of compensation would imply that the development firm would turn out to be unjustly richer.
Due to this fact, enhancements ought to be deducted from the quantities paid by the consumer to the development firm.
The consumer claims that the contract contained generic clauses that had been invalid and that the rate of interest was abusive.
After reviewing the contract, the skilled signifies that the development firm charged the quantity above the excellent quantity of the distinction of R $ 752.44, duly up to date by 02/18/2022. Consequently, the plaintiff was accused of a surplus of R $ 1,145.09.
Double reimbursement is just verified within the occasion of incorrect receipt and the unhealthy religion of the requested social gathering is confirmed. Nevertheless, there are not any quantities to be reimbursed because the charges had been common.
The possession was transferred to the shopper by contract. As quickly because the pursuits between the events are settled, the shopper’s proper to retain possession of the products expires. So it’s a matter of seizure of belongings.
Regulation decide, Lia Sara TedescoV Civil Courtroom of Cascavel, determined to terminate the sale and buy settlement signed by the events.
The consumer was sentenced to pay a penalty to the development firm offered for within the contract (20% of
contract worth – R $ 20,558.00) and compensation to the development firm for losses and damages comparable to the quantities due for the possession of the property from 08/06/2018 till the efficient eviction.
As well as, the consumer should return the property to the development firm.
The decide partially thought-about the consumer’s protection and concluded that the case was closed with a ruling on the deserves.
Declared an over-collection and ordered the development firm to reimburse R $ 1,145.09 to the shopper.
Order the development firm to reimburse the shopper for the quantities deducted from the contractual penalty with revalued quantities and to pay R $ 10,724.33 for enhancements to the property.
The revealed choice is issued at first occasion, so it’s topic to enchantment and might be overturned by the Courtroom of Justice in Paraná.