Post by account_disabled on Jan 24, 2024 21:40:57 GMT -8
Consumer Law is an achievement of contemporary society, having been fundamental in promoting the protection of the most vulnerable pole in consumer relations, balancing such legal relations. The promulgation of the 1988 Constitution marks a new stage of Private Law in the Brazilian legal system, so that the centrality of the system was no longer in the Civil Code and special laws, therefore, in the protection of heritage, but in the Political Charter itself, prioritizing the defense of the dignity of the human person — a greater asset to be protected by the legal system and which constitutes an insurmountable barrier with regard to the actions of individuals and the State itself in its legal relations, as the foundation of the Republic, under the terms of article 1, item III , from CF/88.
With the Constitutionalization of Private Buy Phone Number List aw, legal relations, whether public or private, are now guided by constitutional principles, which also include “some essential institutes of private law” [1] . This is not about mere state interference in the creation of laws that address matters of Private Law, but about the constitutional reading of its institutes and the constitutional inclusion of topics traditionally addressed in the private sphere [2] . And among these rules is consumer protection, included in article 5, item XXXII of CF/88 and, therefore, elevated to the category of fundamental norm, a duty to protect the State, especially the State judge.
In this sense, it is noteworthy that the Federal Supreme Court interpreted article 178 of the CF/1988 without connection with the constitutional commandment of article 5,XXXII of the CF/1988 and without harmony with the economic constitutional order carved out in article 170 and its section V imposing consumer protection. Without a doubt, this is a misunderstanding, which declaration embargoes will clarify and overcome. But it is necessary, from the outset, to state three points to avoid an unconstitutional reading of the Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, promulgated by Decree 5,910/06): the Montreal Convention does not deal with moral damages (only prohibits punitive losses and damages), does not address liability for overbooking /commercial practices/abusive clauses and denied boarding! And the Montreal Convention, contrary to what a hasty reading of the STF decision might say, is an imperative rule for the protection of passengers that only allows derogations in favor of the rights of passenger-consumers [3] .
With the Constitutionalization of Private Buy Phone Number List aw, legal relations, whether public or private, are now guided by constitutional principles, which also include “some essential institutes of private law” [1] . This is not about mere state interference in the creation of laws that address matters of Private Law, but about the constitutional reading of its institutes and the constitutional inclusion of topics traditionally addressed in the private sphere [2] . And among these rules is consumer protection, included in article 5, item XXXII of CF/88 and, therefore, elevated to the category of fundamental norm, a duty to protect the State, especially the State judge.
In this sense, it is noteworthy that the Federal Supreme Court interpreted article 178 of the CF/1988 without connection with the constitutional commandment of article 5,XXXII of the CF/1988 and without harmony with the economic constitutional order carved out in article 170 and its section V imposing consumer protection. Without a doubt, this is a misunderstanding, which declaration embargoes will clarify and overcome. But it is necessary, from the outset, to state three points to avoid an unconstitutional reading of the Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, promulgated by Decree 5,910/06): the Montreal Convention does not deal with moral damages (only prohibits punitive losses and damages), does not address liability for overbooking /commercial practices/abusive clauses and denied boarding! And the Montreal Convention, contrary to what a hasty reading of the STF decision might say, is an imperative rule for the protection of passengers that only allows derogations in favor of the rights of passenger-consumers [3] .