Post by account_disabled on Jan 31, 2024 9:00:18 GMT
Understanding that a company had no vulnerability or hyposufficiency when negotiating financial participation contracts with Oi, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice granted the telephone operator's Special Appeal, ruled out the consumer relationship and established the jurisdiction of the Business Court of the Rio de Janeiro for the case. The case deals with contracts that were governed by the so-called Expansion Plans and Community Telephony Program, regimes that were part of the public expansion policy adopted by the Union in the mid-1970s until June 1997.
In the original action, ABS Participações, assignee of Buy Phone Number List thousands of contracts, claimed to have received the shares in quantities lower than what they were entitled to. In view of this, he requested the issuance of the differences in the shares acquired from Oi or the conversion into losses and damages. Rio x Curitiba Oi, in turn, argued that ABS Participações was not the original holder of these contracts, but the assignee of credit rights arising from securities, with more than 16 thousand financial participation contracts. Also according to Oi, ABS would not be the final recipient of the telephone services resulting from the financial participation contracts.
Therefore, she would not be a consumer of services, but an investor seeking to make a profit in the stock market. In view of these arguments, Oi claimed that the general rules for establishing competences, in this case, should comply with the special rule provided for in article 100, “d”, of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure, and not the Consumer Protection Code . In this way, the jurisdiction would lie with the Business Court of the Capital of RJ, and not the Court of the 17th Civil Court of Curitiba. General rule In his vote, the minister rapporteur for the special appeal, Villas Bôas Cueva, highlighted that the case boils down to the claim to receive shares, with no discussion regarding the use of telephone services.
In the original action, ABS Participações, assignee of Buy Phone Number List thousands of contracts, claimed to have received the shares in quantities lower than what they were entitled to. In view of this, he requested the issuance of the differences in the shares acquired from Oi or the conversion into losses and damages. Rio x Curitiba Oi, in turn, argued that ABS Participações was not the original holder of these contracts, but the assignee of credit rights arising from securities, with more than 16 thousand financial participation contracts. Also according to Oi, ABS would not be the final recipient of the telephone services resulting from the financial participation contracts.
Therefore, she would not be a consumer of services, but an investor seeking to make a profit in the stock market. In view of these arguments, Oi claimed that the general rules for establishing competences, in this case, should comply with the special rule provided for in article 100, “d”, of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure, and not the Consumer Protection Code . In this way, the jurisdiction would lie with the Business Court of the Capital of RJ, and not the Court of the 17th Civil Court of Curitiba. General rule In his vote, the minister rapporteur for the special appeal, Villas Bôas Cueva, highlighted that the case boils down to the claim to receive shares, with no discussion regarding the use of telephone services.