Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 6:23:13 GMT -5
A lawyer obtained an injunction from the Espírito Santo Court not to pay tolls on BR-101. The decision was made by the 2nd Special Civil Court of the District of Linhares (ES) and was granted because the company responsible for managing the stretch refuses to duplicate the runway, as provided for in the concession contract. Bruno Goncalves Fereguetti filed a lawsuit against ECO101 Concessionária de Rodovias citing several reports about the company's lack of interest in duplicating the lane on the stretch it manages within the period specified in the contract.
He also mentioned that the company Buy Phone Number List intends to request an extension of the delivery date for the works. The company did not comment on the process. reproduction Toll collection was suspended because the company did not deliver works stipulated in the contract. For the court responsible for the decision, the relationship between the lawyer and the concessionaire is one of consumption. From this, he concluded that the customer does not need to pay for the service if the activity is not being properly provided.
“The urgency, in this case, is present not only in the default that the author has been suffering, given the demand to pay a toll, for a service not provided, but also in the need to provide greater security to the consumer who uses BR 101, when we observe, every day, lives being lost in tragic accidents, which could have been avoided, if the promised duplication had existed”, he said. According to the court, the company's lack of response confirms “its disregard for consumers who use its service”. “How many more will have to die, so that the defendant is shaken and forced to wake up to the damage it has been causing to the consumer and their families.
He also mentioned that the company Buy Phone Number List intends to request an extension of the delivery date for the works. The company did not comment on the process. reproduction Toll collection was suspended because the company did not deliver works stipulated in the contract. For the court responsible for the decision, the relationship between the lawyer and the concessionaire is one of consumption. From this, he concluded that the customer does not need to pay for the service if the activity is not being properly provided.
“The urgency, in this case, is present not only in the default that the author has been suffering, given the demand to pay a toll, for a service not provided, but also in the need to provide greater security to the consumer who uses BR 101, when we observe, every day, lives being lost in tragic accidents, which could have been avoided, if the promised duplication had existed”, he said. According to the court, the company's lack of response confirms “its disregard for consumers who use its service”. “How many more will have to die, so that the defendant is shaken and forced to wake up to the damage it has been causing to the consumer and their families.