Audiência Conciliação 2 – Proc. N. 0805149-72.2016.8.12.0001

Summary

In this judicial hearing, Judge José Haddad mediates a settlement between the plaintiff and defendant, involving a dispute over compensation. Both parties are encouraged to reach a consensus, with the judge highlighting the importance of compromise. After discussing payment terms and the potential for a mutually agreeable resolution, the parties agree on a settlement of 2,500 reais, to be paid in five installments. The judge ensures that all details, including payment dates and terms, are documented and confirmed, aiming for a smooth conclusion of the case.

Takeaways

• 😀 The judge, José Haddad, introduces himself and emphasizes the importance of hearing from both parties and their respective legal representatives during the hearing.
• 😀 The judge suggests exploring a potential agreement between the parties, asking if they had considered discussing a settlement before proceeding further.
• 😀 One of the lawyers expresses that they are not interested in discussing a settlement at this point, as they believe it would not be suitable for their client.
• 😀 The judge stresses that a settlement requires mutual willingness to compromise and that simply sticking to demands without flexibility is not an agreement.
• 😀 The defense suggests that an agreement would involve recognizing that the damage has been compensated administratively and that no further legal action should be necessary.
• 😀 The judge offers the possibility of working toward a solution where both parties find common ground, even if it means adjusting the terms of the proposed settlement.
• 😀 The parties discuss the amount of money owed and propose a payment plan, including suggestions for the number of installments and amounts to be paid over time.
• 😀 One of the parties suggests that the final amount owed be adjusted to 2,500 BRL, with the total split into five equal monthly installments of 500 BRL each.
• 😀 The agreement includes a clause about potential penalties for late payments, such as an accelerated payment due date and a 30% penalty fee for non-compliance.
• 😀 Both parties agree to proceed with the payment arrangement and request the court's approval for the agreement, including an understanding of the conditions around payment delays or banking inconsistencies.

Q & A

What is the role of José Haddad in this script?

José Haddad is the judge conducting the hearing. He introduces himself at the beginning and oversees the discussion between the parties involved in the case.

What seems to be the core issue in this case?

The core issue involves a dispute where one party (the defendant) allegedly caused damage to the other party (the plaintiff) by not completing a renovation project. The case revolves around compensation for the damage caused, including an administrative settlement.

Did the parties involved consider reaching an agreement or settlement?

Initially, the parties did not appear open to a settlement, with one party refusing to discuss any agreement. However, the judge encourages them to consider a consensual solution, and eventually, an agreement is reached.

What was the judge's approach towards encouraging a resolution?

The judge emphasizes the importance of finding a middle ground and encourages the parties to understand that a settlement requires mutual acceptance. He also suggests that the agreement should not be one-sided but balanced between both parties.

How does the defense view the possibility of a settlement?

The defense acknowledges that the damages may have been compensated administratively, but they are still open to hearing the proposal from the judge and discussing a possible resolution.

What was the agreement made at the end of the session?

The agreement stipulates that the defendant will pay the plaintiff a total of 2,500 reais in five monthly installments of 500 reais, with specific due dates. The payment will be made through a bank transfer to the specified Santander account.

What details were included in the agreement to ensure its enforcement?

The agreement includes the bank account details for the payment, the deadline for each installment, and a penalty clause for late payments. It also mentions that the agreement is final, with both parties renouncing their right to appeal.

What was the dispute over the amount to be paid?

The dispute was over the amount of compensation for the damages caused. The plaintiff initially sought a larger amount, but after discussions, the defendant agreed to a reduced sum, payable in installments.

Was there a penalty for missing a payment?

Yes, the agreement included a penalty clause stating that if any installment was missed, the full amount would become due immediately, and a 30% penalty would apply.

What other elements did the judge suggest including in the agreement for additional security?

The judge suggested including a clause regarding potential inconsistencies in the bank account details to prevent complications in the payment process, such as changes in account numbers or cancellations.