Precedent Citation Code
Precedent I.5o.C.191 C (11a.), precedent I.5o.C.190 C (11a.), and precedent I.5o.C.192 C (11a.), all ruled by the Fifth Collegiate Civil Court of the First Circuit. Amparo review (amparo directo) 594/2024. Nancy Ivet Cruz Prieto. February 7th, 2025. Unanimous vote. Justice: Israel Flores Rodríguez. Advisor: Gabriela Hernández Castillo.
Case Background
An automotive company filed an oral commercial executive lawsuit against an individual who acted as a guarantor, based on a promissory note derived from a simple credit agreement with a pledge guarantee. The defendant filed a direct amparo, arguing that the contract should be interpreted in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, as it involved consumer rights and a potentially abusive commercial relationship.
Legal Precedents
Article 28 of the Mexican Constitution establishes that authorities must counteract agreements that grant exclusive advantages to the detriment of consumers, ensuring balance in commercial relationships.
Furthermore, based on Comparative Law, it references Directive 93/13/EEC of the Council of the European Communities, which recognizes the inferiority of consumers compared to providers in terms of negotiation and information. Following this principle, the Court of Justice of the European Union has determined that national judges must be empowered to assess abusive clauses ex officio to guarantee effective consumer protection.
It asserts that the clause in the automotive credit agreement requiring the consumer to sign a promissory note as a performance guarantee— covering the full amount of the credit—even when additional guarantees (joint liability and pledge guarantee) are already established, is abusive.
Consumer rights protection is extended to jointly liable parties in credit agreements, as they are considered indirect consumers.
Legal Effects of the Case Law
This approach provides additional reinforcement to consumer rights protection, primarily for two reasons: a. It prevents or discourages providers from imposing abusive terms that could harm the most vulnerable party in the contractual relationship; and b. It reduces the likelihood of prolonged litigation, where consumers often lack awareness of their rights.
Additionally, this criterion is innovative, as it shifts the judge’s traditional passivity in legal proceedings toward active judicial intervention (judicial activism).
The corrective approach to evaluating standard-form contracts in court is also noteworthy, aligning with international standards.
Finally, the adoption of best international practices is welcomed, as the court considered provisions such as the European Directive on abusive clauses, setting a precedent for the incorporation of comparative law principles into the Mexican legal system.
Questions and Comments
If you have any questions, or would like more detailed information, or need to review contracts to anticipate possible implications arising from this case law, our Dispute Resolution Practice is fully prepared to provide strategic support. Our team will assist you in evaluating the matter and will propose tailored legal solutions aligned with your organization’s objectives and needs.
