District Court finds Caio Nogueira not guilty in café counter contract dispute

Presiding judge BlimpBrick of the District Court signed a judgment on October 5, 2026, finding Caio Nogueira not guilty in a contract dispute brought by Renata Azevedo over café fittings. Azevedo sought repayment of R$3,000 and relief from paying a remaining R$2,000 balance, but the judgment did not expressly resolve either request.

The formal judgment consists of a single operative sentence. Although the dispute concerned payment, delayed installation and unfinished work, the court used the words “not guilty” without explaining their application to the contractual claims.

The recorded outcome therefore cannot be read as an express award of the outstanding balance to Nogueira, an order to complete the work, or a separately reasoned rejection of each component of Azevedo’s repayment request.

1. Caio Nogueira is found not guilty.

The signed judgment contains no reasons, cites no legal rule and makes no express findings about the quotation, WhatsApp exchange, installation sheet, rental receipt or completion quote. It does not explain how the court weighed those materials.

During the hearing, the judge attributed the delay to Azevedo’s requested change to the machine opening and indicated an intention to rule for Nogueira. The judge later told Nogueira that he had done what he was supposed to do. Those hearing remarks were not developed into reasons in the formal judgment.

The judgment also does not explain the effect of the unfinished doors, Azevedo’s continued use of the counter or her refusal of one proposed return visit. Nor does it resolve whether the parties’ communications changed the original installation deadline.

Azevedo said she agreed to pay R$10,000 for a counter, shelves and four doors, paid R$8,000 by Pix, and expected installation by May 8 before her café opened on May 10. She acknowledged requesting a wider opening for her coffee machine but disputed that this amounted to accepting delivery after opening day.

She said the fittings arrived on May 14 without the doors and that her signature on the delivery sheet acknowledged arrival rather than completion. She sought R$1,800 for shelf completion and R$1,200 for temporary counter rental, while acknowledging that the quote and receipt did not by themselves establish entitlement to every amount claimed.

Nogueira said the change was requested after cutting had begun and that a WhatsApp response indicated acceptance of extra time. He acknowledged that the quotation listed May 8 and that he never supplied a firm replacement date.

He also acknowledged that the four doors were unfinished and not separately listed on the signed installation sheet. He opposed repayment, relying on delivery of the counter and shelving, their continued use and his offer to return. He maintained that R$2,000 remained payable but brought no separate counterclaim.

The dispute arose from fittings commissioned for Azevedo’s café. The parties differed over the scheduling consequences of the altered machine opening and the significance of the signed delivery sheet.

Azevedo accepted that she declined a lunchtime return visit because she was serving customers. She said she requested a visit before opening hours instead and that no appointment was confirmed. Nogueira characterised the missing doors as a finishing task he had offered to complete.

The recorded judgment establishes the court’s stated finding in Nogueira’s favour, but leaves the monetary requests and completion issues without express directions. Its lack of reasons limits what can be concluded about the court’s treatment of the disputed deadline and unfinished work.