Cell phone in the box, new smartphone illustrative illustration white background Mateus Andre/Magnific The Court of Rio Grande do Norte ordered a multinational retail company to pay a customer double the value of a cell phone that was purchased by her, but was never delivered by the company. The decision for refund is made by the 3rd Appeal Panel of the Special Civil, Criminal and Public Treasury Courts of RN. ? Click here to follow the g1 RN channel on WhatsApp The name of the company was not disclosed by TJRN. The action pointed out that the customer purchased a smartphone worth R$665.55 in July 2025 on the retail company's website with the option to collect it in the physical store.
RN court orders company to pay double the value of cell phone not delivered to customer
Cell phone in the box, new smartphone illustrative illustration white background Mateus Andre/Magnific The Court of Rio Grande do Norte ordered a multinational retail company to pay a customer double the value of a cell phone that was...
Click here to follow the g1 RN channel on WhatsApp The name of the company was not disclosed by TJRN. The action pointed out that the customer purchased a smartphone worth R$665.55 in July 2025 on the retail company's website with the option to collect it in the physical store.
- The customer claimed that she had not received the product and was unable to make a new purchase due to a lack of limit on her credit card.
- The company defended itself in court, saying that it provided a purchase voucher worth the value of the cell phone and that it considered the claim for compensation for moral damages to be...
Editorial reading aid based only on information contained in this story and its identified source.
The customer claimed that she had not received the product and was unable to make a new purchase due to a lack of limit on her credit card. The company defended itself in court, saying that it provided a purchase voucher worth the value of the cell phone and that it considered the claim for compensation for moral damages to be unreasonable. Appeal After a first favorable decision for reimbursement, the client appealed alleging failure to provide the service on the part of the company, due to the non-delivery of the product. She also cited the lack of proof that the shopping voucher was actually made available and accepted by her. Furthermore, it sustained the shock suffered due to the illicit conduct of the retail store. The judge of the 3rd Appeal Panel, Welma Maria Ferreira, confirmed that there are no elements that demonstrate that a new legal transaction was carried out between the parties in a consensual manner, highlighting that the company promoted credit in the form of purchase vouchers without confirming the customer's option. No moral damages In addition to reimbursement for the value of the product, the customer also requested compensation for moral damages, which was not accepted. The judge highlighted that the situation was a mere inconvenience or common annoyance. The judge understood that it was not proven that the consumer suffered a real harm to her dignity or her personality rights - a legal concept that protects aspects such as a person's honor, image and emotional well-being. For the judge, the company failed, but the episode did not have consequences serious enough to justify financial compensation. When analyzing the appeal presented by the client, the reporting judge decided to maintain the original sentence that had already cleared the company of this payment. She explained that the judge has the freedom to evaluate the evidence based on logic and common sense on a daily basis. "Based on the rules of common experience, the rejection of the request for compensation for moral damages is the correct measure that is necessary", highlighted the rapporteur in her vote, denying the appeal and maintaining the previous decision. Most watched videos on g1 RN