Contract is null and void if customer does not understand service offered, sa...

nila44

Hiring a service via telemarketing has legal validity and must be honored by the parties. However, if the consumer does not understand what is being offered or is misled by the attendant, purchasing what he did not want, there is a lack of consent, which invalidates the contract.


reproduction
Violation of consent invalidates contracting of service, states TJ-RS
Therefore, the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul accepted an appeal from a consumer who had a compensation action dismissed in the District of Alegrete. The judges, after listening to the audio of the conversation, understood that the telemarketing agent induced the author to accept the plan that was being offered, without him actually understanding what he was purchasing.

Considering the Consumer Protection Code (Law 8,078/90), the panel accepted the thesis that the plan was not contracted, in view of the bad faith during the negotiations. Thus, it declared the B2B Lead payment of invoices sent to the consumer to be undue, due to the difference in cell phone plan migration, and also ordered the defendant company to pay presumed moral damages in the amount of R$5,000.

Duty of good faith
The rapporteur of the appeal, judge Ney Wiedemann Neto, observed that, on several occasions, the author, a man of little education, demonstrated fear in passing on his data to the attendant who carried out ''active telemarketing'', questioning the at all times if your data would not be used for something that would bring you harm. And, when asked if he confirmed the migration, the author asked what it was actually about, at which point the attendant replied that ''you just had to consent''.

In his view, the context leaves no doubt that there was an error in consent, which invalidates the contract and makes the charge forwarded unenforceable. This is because it is the supplier's duty to act with loyalty and trust when forming contracts, to safeguard the parties' expectations. Objective good faith must be observed in the contractual relationship, being the ethical standard to be followed in all its phases. And this did not happen in this specific case, as it was "evident" that the author did not understand what he was acquiring.



''I have evidenced the author's moral pain for feeling deceived, deceived, by the telephone operator who, taking advantage of his lack of understanding, imposed a more onerous contract on him, to his detriment, which he was not even able to afford. bear, forwarding him a subsequent charge with threats of registering his name with a credit restriction agency, according to the document on page 16, which only did not come to fruition due to the granting of an injunction in these cases'', stated Wiedemann Neto in the ruling, reversing the sentence of unfoundedness.