The provider must verify that the product was effectively delivered to the consumer. In other words, it must ensure that the person receiving the goods is authorized to do so and that the delivery address is the one agreed upon in the contract.
In this regard, the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce stated that it is not sufficient to allege that the goods were delivered to a person at the provided address; the delivery must also be effectively made to the consumer.
In the case at hand, the consumer purchased headphones from the defendant company's website. However, he alleges that the product was delivered to a person he does not know and who does not reside at the address provided for delivery.
For its part, the defendant argued that the plaintiff consented to the delivery of the purchased product to the person present at the provided address at the time of delivery.
However, the entity indicated that such consent cannot be a condition that limits the consumer's right to exercise his rights and sue the company for the omission in the delivery of the goods, as this would cause unjustified harm to the consumer, especially when he claims not to know who received the purchased product.
On the other hand, the defendant was unable to prove that it verified with the courier company the effective delivery of the product, nor did it provide evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims regarding non-receipt of the goods. The Superintendence cannot ignore the provisions of Article 4 of the Consumer Statute (Law 1480/11), which states that the rules must be interpreted in favor of the consumer.
Consequently, the defendant's failure to effectively deliver the product was demonstrated, as it was required to physically deliver the product. Therefore, when the plaintiff went to the company's premises, the company had no choice but to deliver the product or reimburse the amount paid by the plaintiff, for having violated the rights at issue in the lawsuit.