Post by messi05 on Jan 24, 2024 11:19:53 GMT 5.5
A clear and obvious error when announcing a price is not necessarily an injury to the consumer. And anyone can conclude that the advertisement offering a plane ticket from Brazil to Australia, via Dubai, for R$470 is wrong. Thus, according to the principle of objective good faith, the company should not be obliged to offer a product at the wrong price it announced. With this understanding, the 1st Appeal Panel of the Court of Justice of the Federal District dismissed the consumer's appeal and maintained the sentence of the Civil Court of Águas Claras, which dismissed the request for compensation for moral damages due to an erroneous offer published on the internet.
The company announced the sale of round-trip air Buy Phone Number List tickets for the Guarulhos – Dubai – Brisbane section, for the price of R$470, with a notable disproportion between the market value and that announced in the offer. For the court, the existence of a material error in the insertion of the offer was clear and evident. "The protection afforded by the Consumer Protection Code to consumers against advertisements that cause harm to them cannot be used in extreme cases, to the point of providing illicit enrichment to those who purchase the product.
" Furthermore, she continues, "the good faith of the defendants was sufficiently demonstrated, as a clarification note was forwarded in a timely manner to consumers who purchased the tickets", she said. The court explains that if it has been demonstrated that the ticket was advertised at a price that was flagrantly misleading in relation to the market value, the supplier cannot be compelled to fulfill the offer in compliance with the principle of objective good faith. The consumer appealed and the Board concluded that, in the face of a gross error, which was easy to identify, and an immediate retraction was made, "the offer does not bind the company, under penalty of unjust enrichment and protection for the consumer's conduct incompatible with good -faith".
The company announced the sale of round-trip air Buy Phone Number List tickets for the Guarulhos – Dubai – Brisbane section, for the price of R$470, with a notable disproportion between the market value and that announced in the offer. For the court, the existence of a material error in the insertion of the offer was clear and evident. "The protection afforded by the Consumer Protection Code to consumers against advertisements that cause harm to them cannot be used in extreme cases, to the point of providing illicit enrichment to those who purchase the product.
" Furthermore, she continues, "the good faith of the defendants was sufficiently demonstrated, as a clarification note was forwarded in a timely manner to consumers who purchased the tickets", she said. The court explains that if it has been demonstrated that the ticket was advertised at a price that was flagrantly misleading in relation to the market value, the supplier cannot be compelled to fulfill the offer in compliance with the principle of objective good faith. The consumer appealed and the Board concluded that, in the face of a gross error, which was easy to identify, and an immediate retraction was made, "the offer does not bind the company, under penalty of unjust enrichment and protection for the consumer's conduct incompatible with good -faith".
(Y)