Euroopa e-õiguskeskkonna portaal - Kohtupraktika
Sulge

PORTAALI BEETAVERSIOON ON NÜÜD KÄTTESAADAV!

Külastage Euroopa e-õiguskeskkonna portaali beetaversiooni ja andke meile selle kohta tagasisidet!

 
 
Viimased uuendused  |  Logi sisse

Navigatsioonitee


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Juhtumi üksikasjad

Maximised version Print Save as PDF
Juhtumi üksikasjad
Isikutunnistus Pärnu County Court, Judgement 2-17-13709
Liikmesriik Eesti
Lühinimetus N/A
Otsuse liik Esimese astme kohtuotsus
Otsuse kuupäev 16/12/2019
Kohus Pärnu Maakohus
Teema
Hageja
Kostja
Võtmesõnad conformity, consumer goods, consumer guarantee, sales contract

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3

EE:PMK:2019:2.17.13709.25647

The installation of an armoured door is considered equal to a contract of sale to the consumer. Non-conformity due to defects is applicable, but it must be proven that such defects were present at the time of delivery and that they were not caused by the consumer or by a cause unconnected with the seller.

The consumer ordered the production and installation of a house door from the defendant. Soon after the completion of the installation, the consumer argued that several defects of the door had appeared. The defendant, in turn, argued that the door is in conformity with the contract and the defects were caused by the consumer himself (the consumer opened the door and it was damaged by the strong wind). The consumer claimed either the refund of the sales price or the costs of a new door.

In which circumstances does a bought consumer good have a lack of conformity which entitles the consumer to use remedies?

The Court qualified the contract as a consumer sales contract but did not accept the consumer’s claim and decided in favour of the seller. The Court found that the existence of some defects was not proved by the consumer, some other defects were repaired by the seller and that some defects were caused by the consumer himself.

URL: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?fid=262773151
Täistekst: Täistekst

Tulemused puuduvad

Tulemused puuduvad

The judgement illustrates that although production and installation of a house door is rightly qualified as a consumer sales contract under Estonian law, in practice it is often difficult to establish whether the arguable lack of conformity really existed at the time of delivery or whether it was caused by the consumer himself or some other circumstances outside of the seller’s control.