Post by messi05 on Jan 23, 2024 23:36:28 GMT -5
Deprivation of use as non-pecuniary (or moral) damage. The Court of Justice of São Paulo, for example, has already ordered compensation for moral damage due to deprivation of use (a) a car that was left for more than 90 days in repair without plausible justification [16] or (b) due to lack of repair parts [17] , (c) of residential property as a result of a gas leak during the construction of Rodoanel Mario Covas [18] or (d) due to the property manager's prohibition on owners accessing their condominium unit [19] .
As we already had the opportunity to highlight in Buy Phone Number List part 2 of this column , it is admissible, in theory, that the deprivation of use entails, in addition to property damage, moral damage. The error is to consider that the problem of deprivation of use is limited to compensation for moral damage [20] . Another part of the jurisprudence seeks to compensate the deprivation of use as a hypothesis of loss of profits. Such decisions are common in claims involving delays in the delivery of residential property sold off-plan.
here is plenty of jurisprudence from the STJ [21] giving a broad interpretation to the expression “that which reasonably ceased to make a profit”, even going so far as to speak of “presumed loss of profit” [22] or that its existence would require no proof due to common experience [ 23] . The close proximity between the deprivation of use (in its pure form) and the loss of profits perhaps explains, in part, the confusion that arises. Both result from the suppression of the advantages provided by a good and are projected into the future, but, while lost profits consist of the frustration of the perception of gains, the deprivation of use frustrates the perception of enjoyment only.
As we already had the opportunity to highlight in Buy Phone Number List part 2 of this column , it is admissible, in theory, that the deprivation of use entails, in addition to property damage, moral damage. The error is to consider that the problem of deprivation of use is limited to compensation for moral damage [20] . Another part of the jurisprudence seeks to compensate the deprivation of use as a hypothesis of loss of profits. Such decisions are common in claims involving delays in the delivery of residential property sold off-plan.
here is plenty of jurisprudence from the STJ [21] giving a broad interpretation to the expression “that which reasonably ceased to make a profit”, even going so far as to speak of “presumed loss of profit” [22] or that its existence would require no proof due to common experience [ 23] . The close proximity between the deprivation of use (in its pure form) and the loss of profits perhaps explains, in part, the confusion that arises. Both result from the suppression of the advantages provided by a good and are projected into the future, but, while lost profits consist of the frustration of the perception of gains, the deprivation of use frustrates the perception of enjoyment only.