Objective good faith and undue bank charges

Abstract

This article analyzes objective good faith and the protection of trust as central normative criteria for the repression of undue charges in banking consumer relations, based on recent case law involving consortiums, financing, payroll loans, unauthorized discounts, and irregular credit denials. It argues that the focus of decision-making has shifted from the literal interpretation of clauses to the assessment of consistency between the contractual discourse and the execution of the agreement, especially in contexts of marked informational asymmetry and frustration of legitimate consumer expectations. The articulation between the duty to inform, prevention of over-indebtedness, repetition of undue payments, moral damages, and appeal limits is examined, demonstrating that objective good faith operates as a standard for risk distribution, rationalization of compensation responses, and qualification of judicial and legal action in banking litigation.