The development firm requests the restoration of the property with deferred installments and is ordered to repay the customer

A development firm from Cascavel signed a contract for the acquisition and sale of an city lot on 08/12/2014 at Residencial Veneza in Cascavel.

The property was bought by a consumer of the development firm for the quantity of R $ 103,869.36 with every installment of R $ 311.92 with preliminary maturity on 09/10/2014.

The development firm claims that the consumer has been in default since March 2018 and that a number of makes an attempt have been made to resolve the pending situation.

Subsequently, the development firm has judicially requested the restoration of the property, the termination of the sale contract, the condemnation of the customer to twenty% of the contract worth, the restitution of the proportion of 6% by means of intermediation, the fee of a payment for damages from undue possession.

buyer dispute

In disputing, the consumer argued that the worth of the credit score doesn’t correspond to any worth communicated by the development firm. He requested for the applying of the Client Code.

He affirms that in 2018 he misplaced his job and that this led to a change in his monetary scenario and, because of the illegality practiced by the applicant throughout the contractual relationship, the values ​​of the installments grew to become onerous because of the abusiveness practiced by the development firm .

In a counterclaim he requested for the unlawfulness of the cost of the remuneration and default fee, the nullity of the clauses and the adequacy of the typical charges utilized by Bacen to be acknowledged. He requested that the overcharged quantities throughout the procurement and the presentation of all paperwork be reimbursed in duplicate.

The client made escrow deposits and fought for the upkeep of the contract.


The benefit of the judgment is assimilated to an motion for the contractual termination of a purchase order and sale dedication with losses and damages linked with the acquisition of an city lot.

It’s famous within the contract stipulated between the events that the contractual clauses are clear in clarifying the type of fee and different particularities and proof that the deal has been made between the events.

Though the quantities have been filed in court docket, the shopper has been in arrears for years, so the quantity of arrears is way greater than the quantity deposited.

Subsequently, a contractual penalty of 20% (twenty %) of the contract worth (R $ 20,558.00) is due, in
favor of the development firm, with no motive to dismiss it.

As for the brokerage payment, the refund is included within the occasion of termination, however there is no such thing as a proof within the file that the consumer has allowed it or any reference that he has dedicated to his fee. Moreover, there is no such thing as a receipt associated to the fee that may be hooked up to the method.

The non-fulfillment of the shopper resulted within the termination of the contract and, by remaining in possession of the property, prevented the development firm from exercising its property rights, making it unimaginable for it to revenue from it.

After finishing up the knowledgeable’s exams, the knowledgeable discovered that the quantity paid by the consumer was R $ 16,436.84 and R $ 4,050.00 in escrow.

It was discovered that the shopper is in default from the installment of 08/06/2018 till the current time, nevertheless on this interval there was using the property by the shopper.

As for the compensation for enhancements, that within the occasion of termination of the contract because of the purchaser’s fault, the enhancements made with out the categorical consent of the vendor, in addition to those who don’t have the required traits, won’t be topic to compensation for enhancements.

We verify that the consumer has acquired the property, made the required enhancements consisting of loo, laundry, balcony and laying of the flooring within the premises, in response to knowledgeable opinion. Such modifications would indicate higher circumstances for the property, including worth. Failure to compensate would end in unfair enrichment on the a part of the development firm.

Subsequently, the enhancements have to be deducted from the sums paid by the consumer to the development firm.

The client claims that generic clauses had been included within the contract, which had been void and claims that the rate of interest was unfair.

After analyzing the contract, the knowledgeable signifies that the development firm has charged greater than the quantity due, equal to the distinction of R $ 752.44, duly up to date as of 02/18/2022. Subsequently, a deductible within the quantity of R $ 1,145.09 was charged in favor of the plaintiff.

The double reimbursement happens solely within the occasion of undue assortment when the unhealthy religion of the requested celebration is highlighted. Nonetheless, there aren’t any reimbursable quantities, as the fees had been common.

Possession was transferred to the consumer beneath the contract. As soon as the deal between the events is concluded, the shopper’s proper to take care of possession of the asset ceases. It’s subsequently a case of restoration of the property.

the sentence

The decide of regulation, Lia Sara Tedescoof the V Civil Courtroom of Cascavel, declared the acquisition settlement signed by the events terminated.

The consumer was sentenced to pay the advantageous to the development firm supplied for within the contract (20% on
the worth of the contract – R $ 20,558.00) and to compensate the development firm for losses and damages comparable to the sums due for the possession of the property from 06/08/2018 till the precise eviction.

As well as, the shopper should return possession of the property to the development firm.

the dispute

The decide partially upheld the consumer’s protection and declared the case closed with a call on the deserves.

It declared extreme assortment and ordered the development firm to reimburse the consumer the quantity of R $ 1,145.09.

He sentenced the development firm to return to the consumer the sums paid, deducted from the contractual sanction with up to date values, and to indemnify the enhancements made to the property for an quantity of R $ 10,724.33.

The revealed resolution is of first occasion, subsequently it’s open to enchantment and might be revoked by the Courtroom of Justice of Paraná.

Leave a Comment