The court focuses on describing the nature of the contract signed by the two parties. First of all, it is a contract that encompasses various judicial relationships: primarily one that binds the card issuer with the card holder, based on the fact that the issuer promises to facilitate the second the right to purchase gods or services in affiliated establishments, while the cardholder or client promises to pay back the sums invested, either in a lump sum or instalments determined, in this case, with the previously agreed interest. There is a second judicial relationship, which is that which binds the issuer of the card to the affiliated commercial establishment, by which the financing entity satisfies the establishment by payment for the purchases effected by users of the card, while the establishment owner promises to accept the card as means of payment. Finally there is the relationship linking the establishment owner and the card user

In the case before us, it is only the first judicial relationship that is of interest to us. The court affirms that, in accordance with consolidated case law, the judicial action for claiming the payment of the debt contracted by the consumer counts on a prescribed period of 15 years. Thus in this case, it is still in force

The retributive or compensatory interests have a specific time limit of five years. Thus, in the case before us, such interests are not to be demanded, since the period of five years had passed. Delay interests, in accordance with the court, can be charged since by virtue of their compensatory nature due to non-fulfilment of the contract, are prescribed for 15 years

Thus, the sentence of the court of first instance, which absolved the consumer from payment, is overturned, and the consumer is sentenced to pay the debt except the compensatory interest