Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 0:32:22 GMT -5
Charging a brokerage fee on property sales is legal when it is duly provided for in the contract. Based on this understanding, the 1st Special Civil and Consumer Relations Court of São Luís (MA) rejected the request of a man who requested refund, in double, of amounts paid as a brokerage commission, due to the acquisition of a apartment, in addition to compensation for moral damages.
reproduction
The real estate agent warned of the extra charge in the contract, which makes it legal
Reproduction
According to the records, the Portugal Mobile Number List author signed a contract with a real estate company for the acquisition of a residential unit. However, the man stated that he was forced to pay R$8,829.18 as a brokerage fee, under penalty of not confirming the legal transaction, if he did not make such payment. He also claimed to have unsuccessfully challenged the contractual terms, which is why he requests the refund of the fee, as well as compensation for the moral damages allegedly suffered.
The company, in its defense, reported that it is in judicial recovery and, on the merits, argues that it is not responsible for brokerage service contracts, but claims that the transfer of the aforementioned fee to the buyer is completely legal, as long as the information is included in the contract, as in the case in question, as well as claiming that liability for moral damages does not exist. There was a conciliation hearing, but the parties did not reach an agreement.
When analyzing the case, judge Maria Izabel Padilha noted that the case must be analyzed based on the Consumer Protection Code, as the legal relationship deduced originates from a service provision contract and that the fact that the company is in judicial recovery does not prevent the delivery of the sentence.
The judge highlights that, "examining the records, it is clear from the initial request that the author was aware of the aforementioned commission — although he stated the opposite at a hearing during his personal statement."
"Therefore, the plaintiff's due contracting and awareness of the brokerage business have been amply proven, with the defendant discharging its burden of proof, applying the understanding of the STJ transcribed above, and, as a consequence, there being no compensable moral damage, there is no other way than to dismiss the requests as unfounded", he stated. Therefore, the request was rejected. With information from the TJ-MA press office.
reproduction
The real estate agent warned of the extra charge in the contract, which makes it legal
Reproduction
According to the records, the Portugal Mobile Number List author signed a contract with a real estate company for the acquisition of a residential unit. However, the man stated that he was forced to pay R$8,829.18 as a brokerage fee, under penalty of not confirming the legal transaction, if he did not make such payment. He also claimed to have unsuccessfully challenged the contractual terms, which is why he requests the refund of the fee, as well as compensation for the moral damages allegedly suffered.
The company, in its defense, reported that it is in judicial recovery and, on the merits, argues that it is not responsible for brokerage service contracts, but claims that the transfer of the aforementioned fee to the buyer is completely legal, as long as the information is included in the contract, as in the case in question, as well as claiming that liability for moral damages does not exist. There was a conciliation hearing, but the parties did not reach an agreement.
When analyzing the case, judge Maria Izabel Padilha noted that the case must be analyzed based on the Consumer Protection Code, as the legal relationship deduced originates from a service provision contract and that the fact that the company is in judicial recovery does not prevent the delivery of the sentence.
The judge highlights that, "examining the records, it is clear from the initial request that the author was aware of the aforementioned commission — although he stated the opposite at a hearing during his personal statement."
"Therefore, the plaintiff's due contracting and awareness of the brokerage business have been amply proven, with the defendant discharging its burden of proof, applying the understanding of the STJ transcribed above, and, as a consequence, there being no compensable moral damage, there is no other way than to dismiss the requests as unfounded", he stated. Therefore, the request was rejected. With information from the TJ-MA press office.