Euroopan oikeusportaali - Oikeuskäytäntö

Tapaustiedot
- Kansallinen tunniste: The Eastern Finland Court of Appeal, Judgement S 21/1098 (not final)
- Jäsenvaltio: Suomi
- Lyhytnimi:N/A
- Päätöksen tyyppi: Unionin tuomioistuimen päätös
- Päätöksen päivämäärä: 12/07/2021
- Tuomioistuin: Itä-Suomen hovioikeus
- Aihe:
- Kantaja:
- Vastaaja:
- Avainsanat: right of cancellation, consumer goods

Laajenna kaikki|Supista kaikki

Direktiivin artiklat

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3
Ylähuomautus

The Court of Appeal did not grant leave to appeal to A who had appealed the District Court's decision whereby the District Court had ruled that i) there was a defect in the car bought by B from A, ii) the car was defective already at the time of delivery, and iii) that B thus had a right to terminate the purchase due to the defect.
Taustatiedot

B had bought a passenger car from A on 27 November 2019, and it was delivered to B on the same day. Soon after the delivery, B noticed that the car was consuming oil and one week after the purchase, B requested A either terminate the purchase or provide a replacement car. According to the oil consumption measurement performed on the car on 30 December 2019, the car consumed 2.3 liters of oil over a distance of 509 km. Witnesses P and L both concluded that such oil consumption was not normal for the vehicle in question.
Oikeudellinen kysymys

The first question before the District Court was whether there was a defect in the car bought by B from A. The second question was whether the car was defective at the time of delivery. The final question was whether there were grounds to terminate the purchase of the car between B and A.
Ratkaisu

The District Court considered it proven that the car purchased by B was defective as it consumed significantly more oil than such cars normally do. B had reasonable grounds to believe that the car would not consume oil in such quantity, even though it was a second-hand vehicle. The District Court considered that it had not been proven that the defect in the car arose after the date of its delivery. The defect was therefore already present in the car at the moment the car was delivered to B and for which A, as the seller, was liable. Further, the District Court stated that the cost of repairing a car depends on how badly the engine is damaged in addition to the piston rings, and the repairs would cost around EUR 1,600–6,000. In any case, fixing the defect requires several hours of work and replacement of parts. The purchase price of the car was EUR 4,500. Even the cheapest repair cost (EUR 1,600) would be about a third of the purchase price paid. The Court held that the importance of the defect for B can be considered high, as he/she has not been able to use the vehicle at all due to its high oil consumption.

Koko teksti: Koko teksti
Asiaan liittyvät tapaukset

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Oikeuskirjallisuus

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Hakutulos

The District Court considered that even if the cost of repairing the car was only the EUR 1,600 claimed by the defendant, the defect is not minor. Therefore, B is entitled to terminate the purchase of the car because of the defect. The Court of Appeal did not grant leave to appeal.

Oikeuskäytäntö

Koko teksti