Orzecznictwo

  • Dane sprawy
    • Identyfikator krajowy: District Court in Warsaw, Judgement XVII AmA 72/15
    • Państwo członkowskie: Polska
    • Nazwa zwyczajowa:N/A
    • Rodzaj decyzji: Orzeczenie sądu w postępowaniu odwoławczym
    • Data decyzji: 04/02/2019
    • Sąd: District Court in Warsaw
    • Temat:
    • Powód/powódka:
    • Pozwany/Pozwana:
    • Słowa kluczowe: unfair commercial practices, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, misleading omissions
  • Artykuły dyrektywy
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7, 1.
  • Uwaga główna

    In the judgement, a failure to provide information on the risks associated with the conclusion of the contract was considered as a market practice which was misleading to customers. An entrepreneur provided  biased information to customers by promoting possible advantages that could be achieved after concluding a contract but without presenting any possible risks. The contract was not a typical real estate purchase, but rather an investment product with a risk level for customers that was above that of a typical purchase of  real estate.

  • Fakty

    During the presentation of the features of the investment product, the entrepreneur provided information on the possibility of purchasing an apartment in a hotel facility. The company sought to conclude the contract quickly, often exerting pressure on clients or creating a conviction in them that the product was running out of availability. This practice was used almost from the very beginning of the sale, because even in the case of customers who concluded contracts at the early stage of sale, there were suggestions that only the last few premises remained. In turn, other complaints show that  when offering the product, the entrepreneur pointed to its high financial attractiveness. While emphasising the product's advantages, the entrepreneur did not inform his clients / consumers about the risk involved with such an investment. The investment was also guaranteed by the involvement of financial institutions, entities from the capital group that owns banks. All these circumstances combined meant that clients acting under pressure and succumbing to persuasion and suggestions engaged their funds in the purchase of apartments. The entrepreneur, using various types of sales techniques, first encouraged them to buy them and exposed the expected benefits to be obtained by buyers, yet he did not inform about the risk associated with this investment.

  • Zagadnienie prawne

    In the offer, can emphasising only the benefits associated with the conclusion of the contract and omitting information regarding the client's risk associated with the conclusion of the contract  constitute unfair market practice?

  • Decyzja

    We deal with misleading market practice (by action or omission) when the images based on it are not consistent with facts, which potentially or actually may affect the average consumer's decision regarding the contract (which would not be concluded if there were no deceptions). For the above practice to occur, it is not necessary for the average consumer to decide on the contract for it to apply directly to the misleading entity. The subject of the ban is an action that violates the consumer's right to make free and informed decisions about contracts as such. The effects of action under the influence of error are protected in relation to the consumer's contractor by other legal means. If the advertising materials provide only the advantages of concluding the contract (attractiveness of the location, attractiveness of the building, profitable rental system, additional benefits resulting from having a club card, the ability to sell at any time), and omitted important information by which to assess the risk associated with concluding agreements  (significant delay in the implementation of the investment, lack of own resources on the part of the developer to complete it, suspension of investment credit by the bank, existence of claims secured by a mortgage), such behaviour can distort the market behaviour of the average consumer before the conclusion of the product contract and its course conclusion.

    URL: https://orzeczenia.warszawa.so.gov.pl/content/$N/154505000005127_XVII_AmA_000072_2015_Uz_2019-02-13_001

    Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst

  • Powiązane sprawy

    Brak wyników

  • Literatura prawnicza

    Brak wyników

  • Wynik

    The District Court  dismissed the defendant’s appeal. It is misleading to provide precontractual information on the contract (transaction) with a consumer that focuses only on advantages and skips potential risks, thus providing a biased and unreal image of potential benefits and losses for the consumer.