Post by xyz3800 on Feb 28, 2024 8:54:30 GMT
The São Paulo Court declared null and void a contract signed by an employee of a company that fell for the so-called "phone book scam". In this case, the employee was approached during an international fair by a representative of a telephone directory publisher who offered free advertising. To do this, she had to sign a form, which was actually a contract. With the document signed, the publisher began charging for the service. Faced with this situation, the company filed a lawsuit asking for the contract to be recognized as null and void, since the employee had no power to represent it, and for the cancellation of any protest or credit restriction. The company was represented by lawyer Ricardo Nacle , from Montans e Nacle. In its defense, the publisher defended the validity of the contract, which contained all the values, and stated that the company received the telephone guide printed with the company's publication.
For judge Sabrina Salvadori Sandy Severino, from the 3rd Civil Court of São Paulo, this is another case of the "phone book scam", which induced the company employee without any power of representation to make an error, which makes the contract invalid. "The conduct perpetrated by the defendant since the beginning of the supposed contracting completely deviates from the good and honest commercial practice that should govern any Exit Mobile Number List contractual relationship, as well as the transparency and clarity required by the Consumer Protection Code, ruling out the suitability of the charge", it states the judge. Therefore, the judge considered the contract null and void and declared the unenforceability of any debts between the parties. Furthermore, given the evidence of crime, the judge ordered the Public Prosecutor's Office to take the appropriate measures.
Thus, the partner who left the company is responsible for his obligations as a partner for a period of two years from the registration with the Commercial Board of his departure from the company, in accordance with articles 1,003, sole paragraph, 1,032 and 1,057, sole paragraph, all of the Civil Code. However, there is divergence in the way of interpreting the obligations covered in this two-year period. The divergence of interpretation consists of knowing whether the partner who withdraws is only responsible for the debts incurred up to the day of the registration of his departure, or whether this partner is also responsible for the debts contracted by the company within two years after the registration of the your exit. The majority of doctrine understands that the withdrawing partner is responsible, for two years, only for the debts already existing until the day of his departure. He is not responsible for any debt that has as a triggering event a date after his departure, even within the two-year period of the withdrawal being registered.
For judge Sabrina Salvadori Sandy Severino, from the 3rd Civil Court of São Paulo, this is another case of the "phone book scam", which induced the company employee without any power of representation to make an error, which makes the contract invalid. "The conduct perpetrated by the defendant since the beginning of the supposed contracting completely deviates from the good and honest commercial practice that should govern any Exit Mobile Number List contractual relationship, as well as the transparency and clarity required by the Consumer Protection Code, ruling out the suitability of the charge", it states the judge. Therefore, the judge considered the contract null and void and declared the unenforceability of any debts between the parties. Furthermore, given the evidence of crime, the judge ordered the Public Prosecutor's Office to take the appropriate measures.
Thus, the partner who left the company is responsible for his obligations as a partner for a period of two years from the registration with the Commercial Board of his departure from the company, in accordance with articles 1,003, sole paragraph, 1,032 and 1,057, sole paragraph, all of the Civil Code. However, there is divergence in the way of interpreting the obligations covered in this two-year period. The divergence of interpretation consists of knowing whether the partner who withdraws is only responsible for the debts incurred up to the day of the registration of his departure, or whether this partner is also responsible for the debts contracted by the company within two years after the registration of the your exit. The majority of doctrine understands that the withdrawing partner is responsible, for two years, only for the debts already existing until the day of his departure. He is not responsible for any debt that has as a triggering event a date after his departure, even within the two-year period of the withdrawal being registered.