Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 1:26:22 GMT -5
Therefore the request for moral damages made against the checkout company was dismissed as unfounded .
There is another similar case file No. -.... which was processed before the in which the plaintiff claimed compensation for moral damages against the payment method platform for having fallen in a scam alluding to “ advertising amounts receivable by the Central Bank”. The judge recorded the following understanding when dismissing the plaintiff's claim for moral damages:
“ Analyzing the arguments of the parties and the evidence submitted to the file it appears that the Plaintiff's claim does not deserve to prosper as there was no failure in the provision of the Phone Number Data Defendants' service as the transaction complained of was carried out by the Plaintiff in the case of a scam carried out by a third party. It should be noted that the Author herself recognizes that it is a scam.”
The judge points out that the exclusion of liability of the payment intermediary company applies in compliance with article item II of the Consumer Protection Code removing its responsibility in relation to the scam carried out by third parties in bad faith :
" Thus in the case at hand the Defendant's liability is excluded applying the provisions of article II without affecting the Risk Theory of the enterprise and the Defendant is not responsible for the transaction carried out through the entering your personal password.”
Finally it warns that consumers should be aware of scams occurring on the internet and take measures to avoid them:
“It is important to highlight that we are experiencing a worldwide period of various frauds which are being widely reported and it is up to the consumer to adopt the necessary measures to mitigate the resulting damage. Furthermore although the st Defendant was only a means of payment the amount was returned within days .”
Therefore the claim for compensation for moral damages against the payment method company was unfounded.
Conclusion A clear distinction between responsibilities is vital for the healthy functioning of
checkout platforms and payment methods under penalty of making the aforementioned economic activity unfeasible due to legal uncertainty in the civil and criminal spheres if they are held jointly and severally liable together with sellers who carry out illegal acts.
While payment companies facilitate financial transactions sellers are solely responsible for the integrity of the products and services offered.
Understanding this limit is crucial to correctly assigning responsibilities and ensuring security and trust in online transactions.
There is another similar case file No. -.... which was processed before the in which the plaintiff claimed compensation for moral damages against the payment method platform for having fallen in a scam alluding to “ advertising amounts receivable by the Central Bank”. The judge recorded the following understanding when dismissing the plaintiff's claim for moral damages:
“ Analyzing the arguments of the parties and the evidence submitted to the file it appears that the Plaintiff's claim does not deserve to prosper as there was no failure in the provision of the Phone Number Data Defendants' service as the transaction complained of was carried out by the Plaintiff in the case of a scam carried out by a third party. It should be noted that the Author herself recognizes that it is a scam.”
The judge points out that the exclusion of liability of the payment intermediary company applies in compliance with article item II of the Consumer Protection Code removing its responsibility in relation to the scam carried out by third parties in bad faith :
" Thus in the case at hand the Defendant's liability is excluded applying the provisions of article II without affecting the Risk Theory of the enterprise and the Defendant is not responsible for the transaction carried out through the entering your personal password.”
Finally it warns that consumers should be aware of scams occurring on the internet and take measures to avoid them:
“It is important to highlight that we are experiencing a worldwide period of various frauds which are being widely reported and it is up to the consumer to adopt the necessary measures to mitigate the resulting damage. Furthermore although the st Defendant was only a means of payment the amount was returned within days .”
Therefore the claim for compensation for moral damages against the payment method company was unfounded.
Conclusion A clear distinction between responsibilities is vital for the healthy functioning of
checkout platforms and payment methods under penalty of making the aforementioned economic activity unfeasible due to legal uncertainty in the civil and criminal spheres if they are held jointly and severally liable together with sellers who carry out illegal acts.
While payment companies facilitate financial transactions sellers are solely responsible for the integrity of the products and services offered.
Understanding this limit is crucial to correctly assigning responsibilities and ensuring security and trust in online transactions.
