TJ-SP declares property cancellation ineffective due to bad faith on the part...

nadiyashultana1

Considering that the company acted with abuse of its dominant position to favor itself excessively, the 4th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo declared the ineffectiveness of a termination concluded between a construction company and a client who had purchased a property in Guarujá .

reproduction
Reproduction TJ-SP declares property termination ineffective due to bad faith on the part of a construction company
The author purchased an apartment in the defendant's development and, with the price paid and given the delay in delivering the work, he chose to cancel the deal and receive back Portugal Mobile Number List the amount paid, around R$700,000, in four installments. However, a few days later, the construction company filed for judicial recovery and included the author's credit in the list of unsecured credits, that is, those who will be paid last.

For the rapporteur of the ruling, judge Enio Zuliani, there was bad faith on the part of the construction company in handling the case. The judge stated that the evidence in the file makes it clear that, on the date of the termination, the construction company was already preparing for the recovery process, a fact that was omitted from the author and, thus, harmed him.

"It turns out that the decision expressed by the defendant, to refund the amount paid in four installments, was expressed with the awareness that the creditor (author) would not receive the value in the form in which it was stated in the obligation. If the author had been aware of what the defendant was thinking when he assumed the duty to return the amount paid, he would keep the property", he said.

Zuliani pointed out that five years have passed and the defendant has not yet complied with the recovery plan, which highlights the willful conduct and bad faith: "The reason for the cancellation, for the defendant, is contained in the purpose of paying nothing. Did you know recovery that would harm solvency and was free to deliver the property that was compromised and paid off. There are no reciprocal interests, but rather, fraudulent and manifest intention".
               


The judge also highlighted that the construction company, in addition to not honoring the agreement made with the author, also gave the apartment as part of the payment to the creditor/financier company for the work, which also acted fraudulently when accepting the donation.

The decision was by majority vote, in an extended trial. The selected rapporteur, judge Maurício Campos da Silva Velho, voted to confirm the first instance sentence that had rejected the action brought by the buyer.