Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 14

ECLI:CZ:US:2019:2.US.2778.19.1

According to Art. 1833 of the Civil Code, a consumer is liable to an entrepreneur only for the reduction in the value of goods caused by the handling of the goods in a manner other than that which is necessary with regard to its nature and properties. This, however, does not apply if the entrepreneur did not provide the consumer with the information on the right of withdrawal, the conditions, the time limit, and procedures necessary to assert such a right.

The consumer withdrew from the contract for the purchase of a table which she had concluded via e-mail communication with the entrepreneur, who runs an Internet shop. On the day the table was delivered to her, the consumer did not fault the goods after inspecting the table, but the next day she communicated with the businessman, claiming that the table had been delivered to her with a damaged leg. After the entrepreneur rejected the table complaint, the consumer withdrew from the purchase contract. However, the entrepreneur refused to return the full purchase price to her, as compensation. According to the entrepreneur, the table was not defective upon delivery and the consumer is responsible for reducing its value due to a defect that the consumer could have caused, for example, by handling the table incorrectly.

In general, even when withdrawing from the contract, the consumer is responsible for reducing the value of the goods, if they handled them in a different way than was necessary to become acquainted with the nature, properties and functionality of these goods. However, this rule does not apply if the trader does not inform the consumer about the right to withdraw from the contract.

The consumer, who has not been informed of the right to withdraw from the contract, is not liable for a reduction in the value of the goods, even if they handled them in a way other than what was necessary to become acquainted with the goods.

The Court of Appeal did not pay attention to the fact that the consumer concluded the distance purchase contract but did to the fact that she was not informed of the right to withdraw from the contract before concluding the distance contract.

URL: http://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/ResultDetail.aspx?id=109507&pos=1&cnt=1&typ=result

Úplné znění: Úplné znění

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutional complaint and annulled the contested decision.