Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 4:26:03 GMT
“It is not fair to impose on the consumer who is no longer able to afford what was agreed to remain in possession of the car when this fact will generate disadvantages and excessive burdens”. With this statement, the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice unanimously denied proceeding with the appeal by Banco Itauleasing S/A which, upon refusing to return the asset, insisted that it should receive the remaining installments for the purchase of the car.
The case is of a woman who signed a leasing contract with Itauleasing, in which she committed to paying installments of R$, of which R$ was the Guaranteed Residual Value (VRG). After paying installments, she found herself unable to deposit the remaining ones, which is why she offered to return the vehicle amicably.
As the bank did not accept the proposal, the author BTC Number Data filed a lawsuit in the st Civil Court, requesting the suspension of the collection of installments, as well as the return of the asset and the amount corresponding to the VRG. Furthermore, she requested that she not be included in credit restrictive registers.
In the first instance, the request was considered precedential in part. Although judge Wilson Kozloweski Junior decreed the termination of the contract and the return of the VRG, he considered that the defendant could not be prevented from including the client's name in the restrictive records, as she had not proven payment of the consideration and continued to use the car until that date.
However, the case's rapporteur, judge Marcelo Buhaten, denied the appeal, maintaining the sentence of the previous instance. He stated that, considering the nature of the aforementioned agreement, in which the property belongs to the finance company, the leased object can be returned at any time and that, according to Statement , approved by the Federal Justice Council, “the principle of objective good faith must lead the creditor to avoid worsening his own loss”.
“Certainly, maintaining the contractual relationship would result in truly excessive burdensomeness for the consumer, who is currently unemployed, leading her to so-called over-indebtedness, which must be avoided, in the name of the principle of personal dignity”, he argued.
The case is of a woman who signed a leasing contract with Itauleasing, in which she committed to paying installments of R$, of which R$ was the Guaranteed Residual Value (VRG). After paying installments, she found herself unable to deposit the remaining ones, which is why she offered to return the vehicle amicably.
As the bank did not accept the proposal, the author BTC Number Data filed a lawsuit in the st Civil Court, requesting the suspension of the collection of installments, as well as the return of the asset and the amount corresponding to the VRG. Furthermore, she requested that she not be included in credit restrictive registers.
In the first instance, the request was considered precedential in part. Although judge Wilson Kozloweski Junior decreed the termination of the contract and the return of the VRG, he considered that the defendant could not be prevented from including the client's name in the restrictive records, as she had not proven payment of the consideration and continued to use the car until that date.
However, the case's rapporteur, judge Marcelo Buhaten, denied the appeal, maintaining the sentence of the previous instance. He stated that, considering the nature of the aforementioned agreement, in which the property belongs to the finance company, the leased object can be returned at any time and that, according to Statement , approved by the Federal Justice Council, “the principle of objective good faith must lead the creditor to avoid worsening his own loss”.
“Certainly, maintaining the contractual relationship would result in truly excessive burdensomeness for the consumer, who is currently unemployed, leading her to so-called over-indebtedness, which must be avoided, in the name of the principle of personal dignity”, he argued.