European e-Justice Portal

Case Details
- National ID: 285/2009-JP
- Member State: Portugal
- Common Name:link
- Decision type: Court decision, first degree
- Decision date: 28/05/2010
- Court: Justice of the Peace (Porto)
- Subject:
- Plaintiff: Unidentified consumer
- Defendant: Unidentified travelling agency
- Keywords: black list, cancellation of contract, contract law, inaccurate information, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions

Directive Articles

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 18.
Headnote

Providing inaccurate information and omitting essential information relating to a contract, in order to convince a consumer to sign the contract, constitutes a misleading commercial practice. Such commercial practice equally breaches the obligation to act in good faith when negotiating and executing a contract.
Facts

The plaintiff received a phone call from the defendant’s employees informing her that she had been selected by the defendant (a travel agency) to win a trip.

In order to claim the prize, the plaintiff went to the defendant’s establishment and, after a protracted insistence on the part of the employees, the plaintiff executed a "card contract" with the defendant. The defendant’s employees assured the plaintiff that she did not have to read the contract and that she would be entitled to cheaper plane tickets and hotel stays than those she would be able to find without the card.

The plaintiff argued that when she subsequently sought out the defendant’s services she was only offered much more expensive trips and hotels than those she could find on her own on the market. Further, the defendant would not allow the plaintiff to change the dates of a trip which she had booked with the defendant, which is something that other travel agencies typically allow. The defendant declined the plaintiff's arguments, citing the terms of the contract signed with the plaintiff, and demanded that the plaintiff pay the entirety of the trip’s price in one lump sum on the very day a trip was booked.

The plaintiff felt misled by the defendant due to the omitted and otherwise inaccurate information provided at the time at which the contract was executed. The plaintiff claimed that she lacked the necessary knowledge to enter into a contract and asked for damages to compensate her losses incurred as well as for termination of the contract.
Legal issue

The court held that the dispute involves a breach of contract as the defendant did not comply with what had been agreed, and the parties must always be bound by any contract entered into between them (Article 406 (1) of the Portuguese Civil Code). Additionally, the court repeated that parties must act in good faith when negotiating and executing a contract (Articles 227 (1) and 762 of the Portuguese Civil Code).

Further, the rules designed to protect the consumers’ interests from unfair commercial practices are set out in articles 7, 8 (v), 9 (1) (a) (and others) of Decree-Law No. 57/2008. The defendant breached these rules and misled the plaintiff by providing her with inaccurate information which led to the execution of a contract with less favorable conditions than those she could find elsewhere on the market. Moreover, the defendant omitted essential information necessary for the plaintiff to make a conscious decision.

In fact, the plaintiff only executed the contract because she was led to believe, by the defendant’s employees, that the defendant’s card gave her particularly advantageous conditions in terms of trips, hotel stays and other related services, which she realized was not so when she tried to use the card.

Finally, the judge invoked article 14 (1) of Decree-Law No. 57/2008, which stipulates that contracts executed under the influence of any unfair commercial practice may be cancelled upon request by the relevant consumer, to retroactively terminate the agreement.
Decision

Does omitting to provide accurate information and essential information for a conscious decision by a consumer, constitute an unfair commercial practice, and more particularly acts of bad faith impacting on the negotiation and execution of a contract?

URL: http://www.dgsi.pt/cajp.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/679aae402ca2d63b802577ba004d09b0?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,pr%C3%A1ticas,comerciais,desleais

Full text: Full text
Related Cases

No results available
Legal Literature

No results available
Result

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The contract was terminated retroactively (void ab initio).

Full text

Sentença

Relatório:

A, melhor identificada a fls. 2, intentou contra a demandada B, melhor identificada a fls. 2 e 44, acção declarativa nos termos do artigo 9º, nº 1, alínea i) e h) da Lei 78/2001 de 13 de Julho, formulando os seguintes pedidos:

Ser a demandada condenada a pagar à demandante o montante de €1.672,56, pago pela demandante desde Agosto 2008 e respectivamente a resolução imediata do contrato do “C” Prestige com o nº x; a condenação por prejuízos patrimoniais e não patrimoniais causados no montante de €3.300,00; e ao pagamento das custas suportadas com a entrada da presente acção.

Tendo, para tanto, alegado os factos constantes do requerimento inicial, de folhas 2 a 4 dos autos, que se dá por integralmente reproduzido. Juntou 1 (um) documento e em audiência 1 (um) documento.

Regularmente citada a demandada apresentou contestação, arguindo a excepção de incompetência relativa do Julgado de Paz do Porto, sendo a seu ver o Julgado de Paz de Lisboa o competente para conhecer da presente acção, dada a competência convencional constante do contrato junto aos autos e o disposto nos artigos 12º, nº 1 e 13º, nº 1 e 14º da Lei 78/2001, além de impugnar os factos articulados pela demandante. Tendo, para tanto, alegado os factos constantes da contestação de folhas 20 a 25 dos autos, que aqui se dá por integralmente reproduzida. Juntou 2 (dois) documentos.

A demandada não esteve presente em audiência de julgamento agendada para o dia 20/05/2010, pelas 10:30 horas, tendo nesta e em anteriores marcações de audiência requerido a justificação de falta, o que na mencionada data não foi possível dada a impossibilidade legal constante do artigo 58º, nºs 3 e 4 da Lei 78/2001, de 13/07, conforme notificação efectuada à demandada a fls. 63 e 64 do despacho de fls. 62 dos autos.

Questão Prévia:

Da Incompetência Territorial

Prescreve o artigo 7º da Lei nº 78/2001, de 13 de Julho que “A incompetência dos julgados de paz é por estes conhecida e declarada oficiosamente ou a pedido de qualquer das partes e determina a remessa do processo para o julgado de paz ou para o tribunal judicial competente”.

Vem a demandada alegar a competência convencional que designa como competente o foro de Lisboa, nos termos do contrato celebrado com a demandante, foro convencional esse inaplicável ao presente caso, dado que, conforme dispõe a alínea g) do artigo 19º do Decreto-Lei 446/85, de 25.10, com a redacção dada pelo Decreto-Lei 323/2001, de 17/12, são proibidas as cláusulas contratuais gerais que estabeleçam um foro competente que, sem justificação, envolvam graves inconvenientes para uma das partes e que, no presente caso, se considera ser a demandante, a parte economicamente mais débil, pessoa singular, a residir e a trabalhar no (Grande) Porto que teria de deslocar-se a Lisboa, donde se considera a inaplicabilidade do foro convencional.

Alega ainda a demandada que nos termos dos artigos 12º, nº 1, 13º, nº 1 e 14º da Lei 78/2001, sempre seria o Julgado de Paz de Lisboa o foro competente, tese da qual se discorda uma vez que considerando o artigo 12º, nº1 da mesma Lei, que preceitua que “A acção destinada a exigir o cumprimento de obrigações, a indemnização pelo não cumprimento ou pelo cumprimento defeituoso e a resolução do contrato por falta de cumprimento é proposta, à escolha do credor, no julg

Case law

Full text