Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 13:34:04 GMT 2
Interest at a frequency less than annual must be expressly and clearly agreed”. However, the judgment of REsp 973.827/RS resulted in great controversy, especially in view of the third guideline established, that “the provision in the bank contract for an annual interest rate higher than two-tenths of the monthly rate is sufficient to allow the charging of the contracted annual effective rate ". This thesis was proposed by minister Isabel Gallotti, in her dissenting vote in which, under the pretext that it would be up to the STJ to define what the “legal concept of interest capitalization” would be, she stated that the adoption of the abstract method of compound interest, present in the Price table, would not imply capitalization of interest.
Based on the premise that there is no Buy Phone Number List capitalization in fixed installment contracts, calculated by the Price table, it was stated that, even if the contract informed an interest rate per month, and another different per year (higher than two-tenths of the monthly rate), interest would be charged at the percentage per year, as long as it is compatible with the average market rate. This conclusion, which gave rise to Summary 541/STJ, presents a series of problems that have already been highlighted previously, supporting the need for its revocation [15] .
So much so that, about two and a half years later, in December 2014, the STJ judged another repetitive appeal, REsp 1.124.552/RS [16] , this time by the Special Court, in which it defined that it is not up to the STJ to state, in abstract, whether or not there is capitalization of interest in the Price table. In other words, the Special Court's decision revoked the final guidance established in REsp 973.827/RS, reestablishing coherence with the Court's previous guidance, validated in a repetitive appeal (REsp 1.070/297/PR), which is not the responsibility of the STJ define whether or not the use of the Price table implies interest capitalization.
Based on the premise that there is no Buy Phone Number List capitalization in fixed installment contracts, calculated by the Price table, it was stated that, even if the contract informed an interest rate per month, and another different per year (higher than two-tenths of the monthly rate), interest would be charged at the percentage per year, as long as it is compatible with the average market rate. This conclusion, which gave rise to Summary 541/STJ, presents a series of problems that have already been highlighted previously, supporting the need for its revocation [15] .
So much so that, about two and a half years later, in December 2014, the STJ judged another repetitive appeal, REsp 1.124.552/RS [16] , this time by the Special Court, in which it defined that it is not up to the STJ to state, in abstract, whether or not there is capitalization of interest in the Price table. In other words, the Special Court's decision revoked the final guidance established in REsp 973.827/RS, reestablishing coherence with the Court's previous guidance, validated in a repetitive appeal (REsp 1.070/297/PR), which is not the responsibility of the STJ define whether or not the use of the Price table implies interest capitalization.