Post by messi05 on Jan 23, 2024 22:47:49 GMT -7
Aware of the restrictions that were being imposed, which is not legally possible, as the contract cancellation information was written in such a way as to hide necessary information from the consumer, so that he could determine what measure that it would adopt for the case at hand, especially since it is a hypo-sufficient party in the legal relationship under analysis'', says the rapporteur. He also cited Statement 375 of the Center for Judicial Studies of the Federal Justice Council: ''In group insurance, a qualified quorum of 3/4 of the group is required, provided for in § 2 of art. 801 of the Civil Code, only when the modifications impose new burdens on participants or restrict their rights under the policy in force''.
In the same sense, article 4, item II, of the Buy Phone Number List Resolution of the National Council of Private Insurance 107/2004 follows: ''It is expressly prohibited for the stipulator and the sub-stipulator, in tax insurance: to terminate the contract without the prior and express consent of a number of insured persons representing at least three quarters of the insured group''. The panel exempted the insurance company, considering that the company did nothing more than cancel the policy, at the request of the party that stipulated the educational insurance – the university. In other words, the insurer, in this specific case, cannot be held responsible for third party obligations, as it was the stipulator who defined the rules and is responsible for the administration and full compliance with the contract.
“Although the object of the action is the prize for a scholarship competition, there was an indirect gain, including resulting from the use of the students’ image and the publicity of the competition on social networks”. Specifically regarding the remuneration of the supplier of the product or service, which is a condition for the consumer relationship, as defined in paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Consumer Protection Code , Mac Cracken cited a precedent from the Superior Court of Justice that includes free services in this list . “The fact that the service provided by the Internet service provider is free does not distort the consumer relationship, as the term "for remuneration", contained in art. 3rd, § 2nd, of the CDC, must be interpreted broadly, to include the supplier's indirect gain”, explained minister Nancy Andrighi, when reporting REsp 1,316,921 in the 3rd Panel of the court.
In the same sense, article 4, item II, of the Buy Phone Number List Resolution of the National Council of Private Insurance 107/2004 follows: ''It is expressly prohibited for the stipulator and the sub-stipulator, in tax insurance: to terminate the contract without the prior and express consent of a number of insured persons representing at least three quarters of the insured group''. The panel exempted the insurance company, considering that the company did nothing more than cancel the policy, at the request of the party that stipulated the educational insurance – the university. In other words, the insurer, in this specific case, cannot be held responsible for third party obligations, as it was the stipulator who defined the rules and is responsible for the administration and full compliance with the contract.
“Although the object of the action is the prize for a scholarship competition, there was an indirect gain, including resulting from the use of the students’ image and the publicity of the competition on social networks”. Specifically regarding the remuneration of the supplier of the product or service, which is a condition for the consumer relationship, as defined in paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Consumer Protection Code , Mac Cracken cited a precedent from the Superior Court of Justice that includes free services in this list . “The fact that the service provided by the Internet service provider is free does not distort the consumer relationship, as the term "for remuneration", contained in art. 3rd, § 2nd, of the CDC, must be interpreted broadly, to include the supplier's indirect gain”, explained minister Nancy Andrighi, when reporting REsp 1,316,921 in the 3rd Panel of the court.