Post by messi05 on Jan 23, 2024 20:36:12 GMT -8
In the judgment of special appeal 1,431,606/SP, by the 3rd Panel, which, by majority vote, exempted the McDonald's chain from paying compensation for the theft of a customer's motorcycle in the parking area of its drive-through restaurant . thru . In the opinion of the majority of ministers of the 3rd Panel of the STJ, the consumer could not have, in this case, an expectation of safety, which would justify the requested repair.
Unlike what happens in shopping centers Buy Phone Number List and hypermarkets, which have basic security items, such as fences, gates, ticket delivery and entry and exit control, the parking in question is offered to its customers as a mere courtesy, as happens in commerce. in general, such as bakeries, pharmacies and gas stations, in addition to not being an essential element for the success of the business developed by the McDonald's chain. In fact, aware of the security limitations existing in the parking lot of the drive-thru restaurant of the aforementioned chain, it would not be reasonable to conclude that the trust that the consumer was induced by the supplier was frustrated due to the theft suffered.
Therefore, in situations like this, it becomes necessary to distribute the risks of economic activity between supplier and consumer, removing the duty to compensate. In fact, the distinction established between the parking lots of shopping centers and hypermarkets with the parking lot of a drive-thru snack bar , to rule out the incidence of Precedent 130 of the STJ and temper the interpretation of § 1, article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code, constitutes a practical example of how jurisprudence is beginning to change, given the need to contribute to rebalancing the distribution of economic activity costs between supplier and consumer.
Unlike what happens in shopping centers Buy Phone Number List and hypermarkets, which have basic security items, such as fences, gates, ticket delivery and entry and exit control, the parking in question is offered to its customers as a mere courtesy, as happens in commerce. in general, such as bakeries, pharmacies and gas stations, in addition to not being an essential element for the success of the business developed by the McDonald's chain. In fact, aware of the security limitations existing in the parking lot of the drive-thru restaurant of the aforementioned chain, it would not be reasonable to conclude that the trust that the consumer was induced by the supplier was frustrated due to the theft suffered.
Therefore, in situations like this, it becomes necessary to distribute the risks of economic activity between supplier and consumer, removing the duty to compensate. In fact, the distinction established between the parking lots of shopping centers and hypermarkets with the parking lot of a drive-thru snack bar , to rule out the incidence of Precedent 130 of the STJ and temper the interpretation of § 1, article 14 of the Consumer Protection Code, constitutes a practical example of how jurisprudence is beginning to change, given the need to contribute to rebalancing the distribution of economic activity costs between supplier and consumer.
