Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 6:45:02 GMT
Despite the coronavirus epidemic ravaging the world, it is not appropriate to invoke it, in a generic way, without any documentary evidence, to break or suspend contracts.
iStock
iStock Judge denies suspension of payment of vehicle installments due to Covid-19
With this understanding, judge Claudio Martins Vasconcelos, of the 2nd Civil Court of Santa Maria (DF), denied a request to suspend the payment of installments relating to the acquisition of a vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that he is a school driver and, due to the Covid-19 epidemic, has suffered financial losses due to the suspension of activities.
"I immediately inform you that it is not possible to uncover the legal requirements for granting a precautionary measure, as there is no evidence to substantiate the verisimilitude of the facts B2B Lead narrated, as well as the alleged risk of damage or useful result to the process, since the antecedent precautionary measure It is only justified in cases where the party does not have the time and conditions to file the main request, with a summary statement of the law and the risk of damage", he stated.
According to the judge, the requested relief is not useful for cases in which the reported damage turns out to be vague and based on the plaintiff's alleged inability to comply with the fiduciary alienation contract. Vasconcelos highlighted that the evidence allows us to infer that the applicant was already in default even before the spread of the virus and the closure of its activities.
"I emphasize that any alleged damage does not justify the intended protection. Indeed, there must be a minimum of plausibility of the alleged right and the danger of damage, under penalty of generating an irremediable future situation, because, it is important to highlight, that any suspended value, must be paid, even if postponed, and could become a more harmful measure than the one currently found, in addition to implying an offense against the principle of legal certainty, which demands caution in analyzing the facts", he added.
Finally, the judge said that the contract under analysis "encloses a signal, with reciprocal obligations to the contracting parties". Therefore, according to him, authorizing the measure intended by the plaintiff would result in "attribution of the business area only to the counterparty".