Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 22:40:58 GMT -5
Without proving the factors highlighted as justifications for the termination of the commercial concession contract, the 31st Civil Court of São Paulo ordered the car manufacturer Nissan to pay compensation for material damage to a vehicle dealership.
Disclosure
Nissan claimed that the dealership had low sales and problems with customers, in addition to not sending reports
The sentence determines that the manufacturer reacquires the stock of new vehicles and components at the sales price, purchases equipment, machines, tools and installations at the market price and pays lost profits in the amount of 4% of projected revenue until the end of the contract.
The dealership had signed a Portugal Mobile Number List contract with Nissan to distribute vehicles, but it was terminated. The automaker justified the termination due to the alleged low sales performance, problems in customer service and the lack of sending monthly reports.
The author, represented by GT Lawyers , sued the court seeking compensation. According to the dealership, the termination would have been unilateral, without valid justification, and Nissan would not have imposed gradual sanctions, as provided for in the Ferrari Law — the defendant would only have notified the author and requested action regarding specific problems.
Judge Mariana de Souza Neves Salinas considered that none of the justifications given by the defendant for the termination were duly proven. Regarding the low sales performance, the automaker only put together unilateral spreadsheets, with data that differed from those presented to the National Vehicle Distribution Federation (Fenabrave).
A comparison with another dealership also showed the author's slightly higher average in terms of sales, as well as a lower proportion of complaints. Finally, an extrajudicial notification from the defendant indicated that the reports were delivered by the plaintiff company.
"In view of this situation, in which it has not been proven in the slightest that the author had repeatedly committed serious contractual breaches, it is impossible to attribute blame to the author for the contractual termination", pointed out the judge.