Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 0:22:07 GMT -5
If the deal was closed, the client cannot be exempt from paying legal fees for success to the lawyer, as agreed in the contract. After all, in addition to the obligation resulting from the contract being a means, not an end, any default by the buyer does not take away from the success of the transaction.
In this scenario, the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul maintained a ruling that dismissed the execution motions filed by the vehicle manufacturer Marcopolo, which did not recognize as payable the fees charged by the lawyer who facilitated the deal made with a transport cooperative in the Federal District.
"There is no need to speak of the obligation being unenforceable, since the work performed by the creditor/appealee resulted in success for the defendant/embargoee", understood the rapporteur of the case in the appeal in the 16th Civil Chamber, judge Ergio Roque Menine.
According to the rapporteur, the dispute B2B Lead involves the application of the OAB Statute, since the nature of the obligation, by establishing the payment of legal fees, is supported by the exercise of judicial activity. "Therefore, there is no need to apply the Code of Civil Procedure in casu as regards the requirements for the viability of the executed title", he concluded in the vote.
Marcopolo filed a special appeal , trying to take the case to the Superior Court of Justice, but the attempt was blocked by the third vice-president of the TJ-RS, judge Ney Wiedemann Neto, who handles admissibility processes. The decision was handed down on September 24th.
Corporate legal consultancy
In the embargoes on execution filed in the 1st Civil Court of the District of Caxias do Sul (RS), Marcopolo SA stated that it entered into a contract with the firm Fábio Sabino Rodrigues Advogados Associados to provide advisory services on the economic viability of cooperatives. transport. Under this agreement, it committed to paying, monthly, R$15,000 plus travel, accommodation and food costs for office staff who were carrying out prospecting and evaluating cooperatives.
During this relationship, according to the initial statement, the parties signed specific contracts, providing for the "payment of a success commission linked to the acquisition and full payment" of vehicles manufactured by Marcopolo. Clause 8 of these contracts provided for remuneration for fees if the deal was successful.
In the specific case of the case, the plaintiff reported having signed a contract with the defendant on March 2, 2015, with the purpose of obtaining credit for the renewal of the fleet of the Federal District Transport Cooperative (Cootarde). The aforementioned clause provided for remuneration for fees in the event of successful purchase and sale, by Cootarde, in the amount of R$ 18 thousand per vehicle actually sold by Marcopolo.