You may have heard of this type of scam: the seller publishes an ad online, you will find a buyer, and you receive the e-mail “confirming” it — it’s just the message that it is a fake. The platform of the ad should be held responsible? In a case involving the Free-Market, the TJ-SP (Court of Justice of São Paulo decided that it is not.
- How to avoid scams in Chat
- How it works is the Land-Lordz of [the coup in the AirBnb]
In the case in question involves a seller who has used the Free Market to announce a smartphone by 2017. He found a buyer who agreed to purchase the unit for$ 2 billion, and he has received an e-mail, ” apparently the Market for Paid — for confirming the completion of the payment.
The e-mail is informed to a payment with your credit card, and instructed the seller to complete the notice and send it by registered Mail. The product was sent by Post and arrived at your destination. The seller waited out the time limit of 21 days for retention of the payment, it was noticed that the account balance was still zero and you got in touch with the Free Market, and that he denied having sent the e-mail address.
The court of first instance, Fábio Mendes Ferreira, the open Market is obliged to protect the safety and security of its customers ‘ by preventing the action of a third party swindlers, under pain of being liable for the damage.” He said that the company had offered “a service without the necessary security to the consumer.
Accordingly, the court ordered the ML, and the Market for Paid-to pay$ 2 billion for the phone plus$ 5 thousand, by way of moral damages. It was decided that the two companies would have paid for a faulty service, in accordance with the Code of Consumer rights, because it “did not provide the proper safety in the provision of the services in the platform of ad, to e-commerce even though profit from the activity carried out”.
The decision of the 2nd instance, free Market, Free of guilt
However, the decision was reversed on appeal. The rapporteur, José Wagner Peixoto, 37 the Chamber of Private Law, he writes, “it is not the case if you are allocating the responsibility to the companies, the digital platform”.
The Free Market says that the seller “failed to respect the guidelines for usage available on the website, making contact, and the delivery of the product to the outside of the web platform”. In addition to this, the company says that it is necessary to log in to their account on the Market, you Paid to verify the payments you have made.
Thus, he writes that “there has not been a failure in the delivery of services, and, yes, desídia the author of” in the court case. (“Desídia” do you mean a lack of attention to, or neglect; the judges, like the vocabulary of the more far-fetched.) For this reason, the decision to assign “guilt-exclusive of the seller, and the Market is not Free you will have to pay damages and the value of the cell.