Summary 381 of the STJ and the retrospect of consumer law in legal ordinance

Abstract

Law 8.078 of September 11, 1990, known as the Code of Consumer Protection, is much more than a consolidation of norms, it is an expressly constitutional will in the regulation of consumer relations. It was thought, democratically discussed and erected to the fundamental rights plan as a norm of public order and social interest, whose goal is legal security in consumer relations, consumer protection, in the dignity of the human person. Public order rules portray the supremacy of the public interest over particular interest. This is an imperative that must be recognized ex officio by the judge, in order to have the correct judicial performance of the State Judge. The edition of Summary 381 of the STJ, which says that “In bank contracts, it is forbidden for the judge to know, on its own, the abusiveness of the clauses”, seriously collides with the command of the mandatory norm, with the command of the Constitutional norm, . This represents a serious threat to the country’s legal order. The main proposal of this work is to demonstrate that the application of the STJ’s Precedent 381 much more than legal uncertainty, it could cause a great setback of Consumer Law. Therefore, it must be canceled by the Court.