Europos e. teisingumo portalas

Bylos aprašymas
- Nacionalinis numeris: Supreme Court, Judgement e3K-3-104-684/2019
- Valstybė narė: Lietuva
- Bendrinis pavadinimas:N/A
- Sprendimo rūšis: Aukščiausiojo Teismo sprendimas
- Sprendimo data: 08/01/2019
- Teismas: Supreme Court of Lithuania
- Tema:
- Ieškovas:
- Atsakovas:
- Raktažodžiai: service contract, disproportionate remedy

Viską išskleisti|Viską suskleisti

Direktyvos straipsniai

Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (1) Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 3
Įžanginė pastaba

1. A construction contract, where one of the parties is a natural person and the other is a legal person (entrepreneur), the object of which does not relate to economic, commercial or professional activities but to the satisfaction of personal, family and household needs, can be regarded as a consumer contract.

2. Termination of a consumer construction contract is not an adequate remedy for the consumer if, in such a case, the total amount of damages claimed exceeds the cost of the contract work.
Faktai

The plaintiffs (consumers) sought the termination of a consumer construction contract with the defendant (construction company) and the award of EUR 26 631,90 for future damages to remedy the construction defects left behind by the defendant. The Court of First Instance upheld the action in part and awarded the plaintiffs EUR 19 520,07 for damages. The Court of Appeal changed the decision of The First Instance Court and awarded the plaintiffs EUR 700 for damages. The plaintiffs appealed in cassation.
Teisės klausimas

1. Can a construction contract, where one of the parties is a natural person and the other is a legal person (entrepreneur), the object of which does not relate to economic, commercial or professional activities but to the satisfaction of personal, family and household needs, be regarded as a consumer contract?

2. Is termination of a consumer construction contract an adequate remedy for the consumers if, in such a case, the total amount of damages claimed exceeds the cost of the contract work?
Sprendimas

1. Yes. In the present case, one of the parties of the construction contract, the customer, was a natural person and the contractor was a legal person (entrepreneur). Thus, the contract at issue in the present case corresponds to the characteristic of subjectivity imposed on consumer contracts. The object of the construction contract (performance of the construction of the log part of a residential house and other related works) presupposes that the purpose of the construction contract is not related to economic commercial or professional activities, but to the satisfaction of personal, family and household needs. In the light of those circumstances, the panel of judges finds that, in the present case, there are grounds for classifying the construction contract at issue as a consumer contract.

2. No. It is clear that the plaintiffs have chosen a remedy where the total amount of damages they seek (EUR 26,631.90) is higher than the proven cost of the contract work (EUR 22,060.81; the plaintiffs have not proved that they have paid the defendant EUR 35,325.57). ), given that the contracted work was carried out by the defendant's forces, materials and tools, it is disproportionate to the extent of the breach and its application in the present case would have inadequate legal consequences for the breach of the contract.

URL: https://eteismai.lt/byla/80155790177937/e3K-3-104-684/2019?word=uab%20%C5%BEimpra

Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas
Susijusios bylos

Rezultatų nėra
Teisinė literatūra

Rezultatų nėra
Rezultatas

The Court changed the decision of The Appellate Court in part and ordered the defendant to additionally pay the plaintiffs EUR 3000 for non-pecuniary damage.

Teismų praktika

Visas tekstas