El principal problema del caso gira en torno a analizar si los remedios adoptados
por el proveedor ante el defecto en el producto se encuentran dentro de los
alcances del deber de idoneidad y, en consecuencia, determinar que Claro es
responsable administrativamente. En base al criterio establecido en la
Resolución 1008-2013/SPC-INDECOPI establece que, independientemente de
que el proveedor haya corregido el defecto, basta que se acredite que hubo un
defecto y que dicho defecto sea atribuible al proveedor, el proveedor debe de
responder por dicho defecto. Por lo que, en el presente caso, el proveedor no
logró acreditar que el golpe fue la causa de que el celular presentara defectos.
Por lo que, Claro es responsable administrativamente por incurrir a una infracción
al deber de idoneidad.
Asimismo, analizar que no existió vulneración al debido procedimiento por parte
de la Comisión al declarar nulidad parcial de la resolución de la primera instancia.
Además, se analizará el recurso de revisión y si ante su interposición era posible
ejecutar o exigir el cumplimiento de la medida correctiva y de la sanción emitida
mediante Resolución Final Nº 3015-2012/PS3. Finalmente, cuestionar la
aplicación del recurso de revisión en el presente caso. / The main problem of the case revolves around analyzing the remedies adopted
by the supplier in the face of the defect in the product are within the scope of the
duty of suitability and, consequently, determining that Claro is administratively
responsible. Based on the criteria established in Resolution 1008-2013/SPC INDECOPI, it establishes that, regardless of whether the supplier has corrected
the defect, it is enough to prove that there was a defect and that said defect is
attributable to the supplier, the supplier must respond for said defect. Therefore,
in the present case, the provider was unable to prove that the blow was the cause
of the defects in the cell phone. Therefore, Claro is administratively responsible
for incurring a breach of the duty of suitability.
Likewise, to analyze that there was no violation of due process by the
Commission by declaring partial nullity of the resolution of the first instance. In
addition, the appeal for review will be analyzed and if before its filing it was
possible to execute or demand compliance with the corrective measure and the
sanction issued by Final Resolution No. 3015-2012/PS3. Finally, to question the
application of the review resource in the present case.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/25577 |
| Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Creators | Espinoza Flores, Winy Marilin |
| Contributors | Moscol Salinas, Alejandro Martín |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/pe/ |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds