Gradually, judicial cases are progressing in the province, recognizing the unequal relationship that exists between those who buy vehicles financed through the savings scheme system, those who suffer the arbitrariness of car dealerships and manufacturers. whom they are compelled to pay. Huge amount for quota which is well above key indicators of economy.
Last year Villa Angela and now in Tolerance In recent times, the first judgment that recognized non-economic and punitive damages to a saver, which saw how in just three years he started paying fees and the amount payable increased by over 500 per cent, The dollar and cost of living were well below that figure when the variations were known. According to the decision of the owner of Civil and Commercial Court No. 20, Raphael Trotty, Victim started paying $4,500 in April 2017 and to August 2020 $27,300 was required, what did he ask 54 percent of your monthly income.
Demand
In order to make payments increasingly affected in his daily economy, the saver initiates demand which is basically based on the fact that there should be no co-responsibility in this type of contract, establishing clear and accessible in the case of the company The mechanism regarding variation of tha quota.
“In that time interval there has been an increase of 597.54% with respect to quota and 366.10% with respect to mobile price. After a sequence of considerations, over three years and three months—39 months—the increase was consolidated at 597.54%. , which is equivalent to saying that it suffered an estimated and average monthly increase of 15.32% per year or 183.85% per year”, a quote from the ruling to indicate that the increase was even higher than that value. which was modified into property.
In doing so, the judge takes its position known as the lack of foresight principle, which is nothing more than the possibility of legal claims when contracts are hard to fulfill due to circumstances beyond the control of those signing them. To mark the arbitrariness and penalty from which resistance worker car dealers are freed, in this case it reaches the capital from a firm that deals with the Fiat brand, it indicated. It is reported that when the saver was able to access the award of his vehicle, what remained to be paid was a little less than half a million pesos, however, due to the increase in the value of installments and only slightly more than half upon filing a lawsuit. Due to be paid, the amount was $750 ml.
resolution
In her sentence, the judge agreed to Saver’s request to consider the contract collapsed because of the disparity she was facing the company, a lack of information and an immeasurable increase in fees, in addition to considering whether The company should give compensation without harming the woman. And there he finds a Solomonic shortcut indicating that he did not consider the return of the car appropriate due to the time and use of the vehicle (more than four on the roads).
Specifically, the judge indicates that the company must pay the victim approximately two million pesos, but from that amount it will deduct one and a half million as compensation that it would not collect because the contract was terminated. That is, the compensation will be 500 thousand in which 100 thousand non-pecuniary damage is added.
