Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 0:18:10 GMT -5
Canceling the credit limit, without prior notification, constitutes an abuse of rights against the account holder. Reason: The act violates the principles of probity and contractual good faith. With this understanding, the th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul maintained a first-degree decision that condemned Banco do Brasil to pay R$, in compensation to a customer who had her credit limit summarily cut.
The bank's unilateral attitude violated article of the Civil Code, whose requirement for the validity of private pacts subordinates the effectiveness of the agreements to the observance of certain standards of probity, loyalty and sociability. Therefore, the contract cannot be conceived as an isolated thing, but inserted in the context of the legal system, which ensures the principle of equality. The ruling is dated June th. There is an appeal.
In the reparation action being processed in the th Civil BTC Number Data Court of the Central Court of Porto Alegre, the author said that the bank, without any explanation, canceled her credit limit. As this attitude caused her losses and embarrassment, she requested financial compensation for moral damages.
The banking institution argued that it acted within the limits of the law and the rules of the contract. This authorizes the individual situation of each client to be periodically reviewed.
Judge Luiz Augusto Guimarães de Souza stated, in his ruling , that the issue was so simple that there was no room for further digressions. He upheld the author's request.
He stated that he does not question the reasons that led the bank to cancel the credit limits, except for one very important detail: it did not inform the customer of its decision in advance. ''It is worth saying, (the bank) acted without the help of the law. Furthermore, in other words, just as the customer is recognized as having the right to review the credit limits discussed, the customer is also recognized as having the inalienable right to know, with reasonable advance notice, that from a future date he you will no longer be able to count on these same limits'', concluded the judge, setting the reparation at R$,
Unilateral breach
The bank appealed to the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice. He stated that he canceled the line of credit because he was no longer interested in continuing to provide the author with a limit. He highlighted that he enjoys this prerogative, as he is a banking institution, which is perfectly in line with the principle of autonomy of will. He denied any defect in the provision of service, which disallows the payment of moral damages.
The rapporteur of the Appeal in the th Civil Chamber, judge José Aquino Flôres de Camargo, stated that the bank's act was indeed arbitrary, considering that the parties have had a contract since ''Under the circumstances, the cancellation of the credit limit constituted, at the very least, , an abuse of rights that cannot be tolerated'', he warned.
The bank's unilateral attitude violated article of the Civil Code, whose requirement for the validity of private pacts subordinates the effectiveness of the agreements to the observance of certain standards of probity, loyalty and sociability. Therefore, the contract cannot be conceived as an isolated thing, but inserted in the context of the legal system, which ensures the principle of equality. The ruling is dated June th. There is an appeal.
In the reparation action being processed in the th Civil BTC Number Data Court of the Central Court of Porto Alegre, the author said that the bank, without any explanation, canceled her credit limit. As this attitude caused her losses and embarrassment, she requested financial compensation for moral damages.
The banking institution argued that it acted within the limits of the law and the rules of the contract. This authorizes the individual situation of each client to be periodically reviewed.
Judge Luiz Augusto Guimarães de Souza stated, in his ruling , that the issue was so simple that there was no room for further digressions. He upheld the author's request.
He stated that he does not question the reasons that led the bank to cancel the credit limits, except for one very important detail: it did not inform the customer of its decision in advance. ''It is worth saying, (the bank) acted without the help of the law. Furthermore, in other words, just as the customer is recognized as having the right to review the credit limits discussed, the customer is also recognized as having the inalienable right to know, with reasonable advance notice, that from a future date he you will no longer be able to count on these same limits'', concluded the judge, setting the reparation at R$,
Unilateral breach
The bank appealed to the Rio Grande do Sul Court of Justice. He stated that he canceled the line of credit because he was no longer interested in continuing to provide the author with a limit. He highlighted that he enjoys this prerogative, as he is a banking institution, which is perfectly in line with the principle of autonomy of will. He denied any defect in the provision of service, which disallows the payment of moral damages.
The rapporteur of the Appeal in the th Civil Chamber, judge José Aquino Flôres de Camargo, stated that the bank's act was indeed arbitrary, considering that the parties have had a contract since ''Under the circumstances, the cancellation of the credit limit constituted, at the very least, , an abuse of rights that cannot be tolerated'', he warned.