Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 23:49:20 GMT -5
Can the Judiciary make decisions based on WhatsApp conversations , even if they are eventually taken out of context? Or should you just consider what is written in the contract between the disputing parties? After all, do WhatsApp messages have the same weight as a purchase and sale contract signed between the parties?
reproduction
reproduction
These three simple and pertinent questions must be answered next Thursday (25/2) by the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande Sul, when its members will analyze the motions for declaration filed by the lawyers of the seller of an apartment in Porto Happy. They intend to reform the appeal ruling that considered conversations via the app as "proof of payment", contrary to the way established in the contract.
At the root of the legal imbroglio, a B2B Lead mistake when paying the installments led to the litigation, explains lawyer and journalist Marco Antonio Birnfeld , from the website Espaço Vital . Follow the development and outcome of this judicial decision up to the appeal phase through the journalist's own "penalty".
Payment of the property at a notary's office
The case began in 2018. Buyer and seller adjusted the price of R$470,000 for the property, in the Menino Deus neighborhood. The plan was to divide the down payment into two installments, until the "Occupancy Permit" was granted and the remainder was financed. The entire transaction was intermediated by a well-known real estate agency in the Capital.
Contract signed and first installments paid, sellers granted possession to buyers. All within the principle of good faith. Also with the best of intentions, the buyers gathered the money ahead of schedule and decided to pay off the property without bank financing. That's when the problem started.
Canceled deal
A partner of the real estate agency — who did not act in the intermediation of the deal and, therefore, was unknown to the seller — was approached by the buyers to proceed with the settlement. He demanded that a real estate agency bank account be used for the transaction. The professional scheduled the signing of the deed. The buyer would have received "100% of the information". The seller claims to have been notified only about the form of the deposit, without confirmation about the date of the deed.
On the day determined by the owner of the real estate agency, the buyer deposited the amount into the real estate agency's account and signed his part of the deed. The seller was not called to the registry office and was unable to see the color of the money, which was not transferred by the real estate agency. The act was then annulled by the registry office.
