Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N° 0148-2023/SPC-INDECOPI
Date
2024-08-12
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
El presente informe jurídico analiza la Resolución N.º 0148-2023/SPCINDECOPI,
la cual examina el grado de comprensión del concepto funcional de
idoneidad de un producto financiero tanto por los consumidores como por los
proveedores. Los consumidores adquieren productos con el propósito de
satisfacer una necesidad específica, y, por ende, es razonable esperar que las
expectativas relacionadas con el uso del producto se cumplan conforme a su
función adquirida. La resolución de la Sala Especializada en Protección al
Consumidor del INDECOPI revisa este concepto de idoneidad y determina su
aplicación a través del análisis de las garantías otorgadas por el proveedor,
priorizando el fallo a favor del consumidor.
Sin embargo, se concluye que el análisis realizado por la Sala no fue correcto.
Específicamente, se observó que la Sala se enfocó en la garantía implícita del
producto o servicio proporcionado por el proveedor sin considerar previamente
la aplicación de la garantía explícita, conforme al artículo 20 del Código de
Protección y Defensa del Consumidor. Además, no se abordó el concepto de
cláusulas abusivas de ineficacia absoluta regulado en el artículo 50 del mismo
Código, en relación con las cláusulas contenidas en la Solicitud de Transferencia
Interbancaria del proveedor que limitan la responsabilidad del banco.
Aunque concuerdo con la decisión de la Sala de que hubo una infracción al deber
de idoneidad y que, por tanto, el banco tiene responsabilidad administrativa,
considero que el análisis realizado por la Sala no fue correcto.
The present legal report analyzes Resolution No. 0148-2023/SPC-INDECOPI, which examines the degree of understanding of the functional concept of the suitability of a financial product by both consumers and providers. Consumers acquire products to satisfy a specific need, and hence, it is reasonable to expect that the expectations related to the use of the product are met according to its intended function. The resolution by the Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection of INDECOPI reviews this concept of suitability and determines its application through the analysis of the guarantees provided by the provider, prioritizing the ruling in favor of the consumer. However, it is concluded that the analysis conducted by the Chamber was not correct. Specifically, it was observed that the Chamber focused on the implicit warranty of the product or service provided by the supplier without first considering the application of the explicit warranty, in accordance with Article 20 of the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense. Additionally, the concept of abusive clauses of absolute inefficacy regulated in Article 50 of the same Code was not addressed, in relation to the clauses contained in the provider's Interbank Transfer Request that limit the bank's liability. Although I agree with the Chamber's decision that there was a breach of the duty of suitability and that, therefore, the bank has administrative responsibility, I consider that the analysis carried out by the Chamber was not sufficiently thorough.
The present legal report analyzes Resolution No. 0148-2023/SPC-INDECOPI, which examines the degree of understanding of the functional concept of the suitability of a financial product by both consumers and providers. Consumers acquire products to satisfy a specific need, and hence, it is reasonable to expect that the expectations related to the use of the product are met according to its intended function. The resolution by the Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection of INDECOPI reviews this concept of suitability and determines its application through the analysis of the guarantees provided by the provider, prioritizing the ruling in favor of the consumer. However, it is concluded that the analysis conducted by the Chamber was not correct. Specifically, it was observed that the Chamber focused on the implicit warranty of the product or service provided by the supplier without first considering the application of the explicit warranty, in accordance with Article 20 of the Code of Consumer Protection and Defense. Additionally, the concept of abusive clauses of absolute inefficacy regulated in Article 50 of the same Code was not addressed, in relation to the clauses contained in the provider's Interbank Transfer Request that limit the bank's liability. Although I agree with the Chamber's decision that there was a breach of the duty of suitability and that, therefore, the bank has administrative responsibility, I consider that the analysis carried out by the Chamber was not sufficiently thorough.
Description
Keywords
Protección del consumidor--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho financiero--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Cláusulas (Derecho), Contratos de adhesión
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess