Post by account_disabled on Jan 31, 2024 11:19:41 GMT
In the relationship between a member and a cooperative, it is not possible to equate the first party to a consumer. This was the thesis applied by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice when reforming the São Paulo Court ruling that had applied the Consumer Protection Code when setting a fine for non-compliance with a Rural Product Certificate (CPR). The case involves a poultry farmer who issued six CPRs to a cooperative, which later transferred the bonds to a bank. Without receiving the remaining balance, the bank sued for the execution of the bonds and the man sought to reduce the fine on the debt, provided for in the issuance act, by 10% of the total value of the bonds.
The São Paulo Court of Justice had equated the Buy Phone Number List issuer of the CPRs to a consumer and, therefore, limited the fine to 2% of the value of the debt. The rapporteur at the STJ, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, stated that the ballots were issued in a clear cooperative act between the poultry farmer and the cooperative. For Sanseverino, the endorsement of the ballot for another institution (circulation of the title to a third party) is not an act capable of generating nullity of the CPRs, as the poultry farmer intended. Sanseverino recalled that CPRs are used as a form of financing and offer greater flexibility in relation to Rural Credit Certificates (CCR), which have limitations in their use and are linked to the intended purpose.
In turn, CPRs can be used to settle various debts, without this meaning nullity or misuse of purpose, as defended by the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the minister, there is no impediment to the execution of the title by the financial institution. For the minister, the poultry farmer cannot oppose the execution of the title that was put into circulation by means of endorsement. The theses of nullity of the ballots, in the rapporteur's view, do not deserve to prosper, since the flexibility of the CPRs was foreseen both by the legislator and by the jurisprudence of the courts, which accept their use for different purposes.
The São Paulo Court of Justice had equated the Buy Phone Number List issuer of the CPRs to a consumer and, therefore, limited the fine to 2% of the value of the debt. The rapporteur at the STJ, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, stated that the ballots were issued in a clear cooperative act between the poultry farmer and the cooperative. For Sanseverino, the endorsement of the ballot for another institution (circulation of the title to a third party) is not an act capable of generating nullity of the CPRs, as the poultry farmer intended. Sanseverino recalled that CPRs are used as a form of financing and offer greater flexibility in relation to Rural Credit Certificates (CCR), which have limitations in their use and are linked to the intended purpose.
In turn, CPRs can be used to settle various debts, without this meaning nullity or misuse of purpose, as defended by the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the minister, there is no impediment to the execution of the title by the financial institution. For the minister, the poultry farmer cannot oppose the execution of the title that was put into circulation by means of endorsement. The theses of nullity of the ballots, in the rapporteur's view, do not deserve to prosper, since the flexibility of the CPRs was foreseen both by the legislator and by the jurisprudence of the courts, which accept their use for different purposes.
