Academy loses student's cell phone in locked cabinet and is ordered to pay for new device
A sign with the phrase “we are not responsible” did not remove the company's obligation, according to the decision reported by O Antagonista.
BY THE X-TRADER NEWS NEWSROOM · REPORTING FROM O ANTAGONISTA · 2 MIN
A gym student had his cell phone stolen from a locked cabinet. When looking for reception, he heard the sign saying “we are not responsible” as justification. According to O Antagonista, the court did not accept the argument and ordered the company to pay the consumer for a new device.
The case touches on a sensitive point for those who offer custody of belongings: the sign, in itself, does not end the discussion. According to the text, the Consumer Protection Code considers the clause that exempts the supplier from damages to be null and void. A higher court summary, cited without the name in the text, deals with the company's duty of vigilance.
Also according to O Antagonista, this responsibility would apply even if the locker is free or if the student has used his or her own padlock. The text also presents a hypothetical scenario: if the cabinet were broken into, the franchise owner would have to pay for a new device. In practice, the warning printed on the wall does not replace the obligation to repair the damage.
For the consumer, the text indicates a two-step path. In the first step, he must talk to management taking a police report and documents from the device. If there is a refusal, the second step is to go to the Special Civil Court in the consumer's city, where, in simple cases, there are no costs and it is possible to obtain compensation for the total loss.
What is at stake goes beyond a cell phone. Gyms, clubs and other companies that offer lockers now have a reference that brings the consumer relationship closer to an obligation of surveillance, and not just the provision of space. In an environment that values contractual freedom, the question that remains is how far an exemption clause can be valid when the law itself considers it null.
What changes for the investor
The text analyzes an individual case and does not provide data on the financial impact for companies in the sector, so there is no way to measure the effect on results. In theory, the tendency to hold suppliers responsible for goods stored in their facilities could increase costs with compensation, insurance and lawsuits, and weigh more heavily on companies with many physical units. For those who follow the sector, it is worth observing whether similar cases multiply and whether companies start to review contracts and policies for storing belongings. This article does not provide a purchase or sale recommendation.
Automatically translated from Portuguese.
