Uber may disqualify driver with conviction for theft crime

nadiyashultana1

Based on the principle of freedom to contract, the 34th Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo reformed the first degree sentence and exempted Uber from re-registering a driver who was excluded from the application after user complaints and for having a previous conviction for the crime of theft.


reproduction
Reproduction Uber may disqualify driver with conviction for theft crime
The driver alleged abuse in Uber's conduct and the court of origin agreed with the thesis that the blocking of the account was undue. Uber was ordered to pay compensation for lost profits since the date of the driver's disqualification, in addition to compensation for moral damages of R$5,000.

To the TJ-SP, Uber defended the Portugal Mobile Number List fair reason for deactivating the account (a conviction for theft and complaints from users about the driver's dangerous driving) and the possibility of unilateral termination, in addition to defending freedom of contracting and autonomy of will. Unanimously, the judging panel upheld the application’s appeal.

Initially, the rapporteur, judge Djalma Lofrano Filho, highlighted that there was no consumer relationship, as there is no consumer and supplier relationship between the parties. He said that the driver works in partnership with the application to develop passenger transport activities.

"Although the terms and conditions for accreditation of the appellee's platform are membership, there is no abusiveness. In these terms, the rules of the Civil Code apply to the hypothesis, in particular article 421, which provides for the freedom to contract and the principle of minimum state intervention in contracts", he added.

For the rapporteur, there is no abusiveness in the contract signed, and the requirement of a minimum quality standard by those who intend to remain as a service provider is legal, "and even recommended", since Uber may even be held responsible for any eventual damage occurred.


"In addition, the company must ensure the standard of the services provided, as users expect the service to be carried out with efficiency, safety and quality, so that they do not go through any unpleasant or embarrassing experience", he said.
               


The judge stated that, in this case, the principle of freedom to contract must prevail. According to him, Uber is not obliged to maintain the relationship with the driver, and may terminate the contract when it finds that the professional's behavior towards passengers is not in line with what is expected and "even the existence of criminal proceedings violates the policy company security".

"There is, therefore, no illegality in unilateral termination, as maintained by the appellant, nor is there even a consideration of a violation of the contradictory and broad defense, as the simple existence of an ongoing criminal action is sufficient reason to impede the exercise of the application driver's activity , as already explained", concluded the judge.