Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 15:51:06 GMT 10
The bank must not reimburse amounts for withdrawals and purchases caused by a flash kidnapping that occurred outside a bank branch, but is responsible for any extra amounts automatically granted if the limit of the customer victim of the crime has already been reached. This was the understanding of the 22nd Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice. reproduction Financial institution must reimburse consumer for expenses above the limit The case was analyzed by the court after a bank appealed a first-degree conviction that forced it to reimburse debts made above the limit pre-defined by the financial institutions themselves.
On the other hand, the sentence Buy Phone Number List denied the request for compensation for moral damages. The bank claimed in its appeal that it was illegal to be involved in the action, as it had no duty to compensate, as the crime occurred outside the bank branch. The author of the action was kidnapped in 2014. While she was held hostage, the criminals withdrew R$1,000 from her current account, made purchases totaling R$1,594.20 and spent another R$1,700 on the victim's credit card. The limit on this card was R$800, according to information in the file. After sending a copy of the police report to the banks, the author managed to obtain her credit limits again and had the expenses made on her credit card reversed.
Still, she received an invoice with the charges cancelled. The rapporteur of the winning vote, judge Roberto Mac Cracken, explained that, regardless of whether or not the crime occurred within a branch of the financial institution, the banks are responsible in the case for allowing purchases above the pre-defined limit. “Based on the duty to comply with contractually established obligations and to observe the principle of objective good faith, they should, with the technological tools they have, take security measures to block credit cards for transactions above the contracted limit and outside the consumption profile of the author”, he stated. The situation, continued the judge, characterized a defect in the provision of service, as defined in article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code.
On the other hand, the sentence Buy Phone Number List denied the request for compensation for moral damages. The bank claimed in its appeal that it was illegal to be involved in the action, as it had no duty to compensate, as the crime occurred outside the bank branch. The author of the action was kidnapped in 2014. While she was held hostage, the criminals withdrew R$1,000 from her current account, made purchases totaling R$1,594.20 and spent another R$1,700 on the victim's credit card. The limit on this card was R$800, according to information in the file. After sending a copy of the police report to the banks, the author managed to obtain her credit limits again and had the expenses made on her credit card reversed.
Still, she received an invoice with the charges cancelled. The rapporteur of the winning vote, judge Roberto Mac Cracken, explained that, regardless of whether or not the crime occurred within a branch of the financial institution, the banks are responsible in the case for allowing purchases above the pre-defined limit. “Based on the duty to comply with contractually established obligations and to observe the principle of objective good faith, they should, with the technological tools they have, take security measures to block credit cards for transactions above the contracted limit and outside the consumption profile of the author”, he stated. The situation, continued the judge, characterized a defect in the provision of service, as defined in article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code.