• Dane sprawy
    • Identyfikator krajowy: Supreme Court, Judgement I NSNc 171/20
    • Państwo członkowskie: Polska
    • Nazwa zwyczajowa:N/A
    • Rodzaj decyzji: Orzeczenie sądu najwyższego
    • Data decyzji: 30/06/2021
    • Sąd: Sąd Najwyższy
    • Temat:
    • Powód/powódka:
    • Pozwany/Pozwana:
    • Słowa kluczowe: defective sample
  • Artykuły dyrektywy
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3
  • Uwaga główna

    The judgement refers to the definition of a defect and the remedies that can be taken by a buyer.

  • Fakty

    Defendants A. and K. O. in 2009 bought and imported a VW Passat passenger car from Italy. The car had a damaged bumper, right front lamp, right fender and engine hood. The damage was repaired. The defendants received Italian documents relating to the car, which were translated during registration in Poland. On the basis of these documents, the date of production was included in the Polish registration document - 2006. The defendants used this car for 5 years. In 2014, the defendants decided to sell the car and posted an advertisement on the Internet. The plaintiff contacted the defendants and arranged an appointment to see the car. During the inspection, the defendants informed the claimant about the repaired damage to the car. The plaintiff, after returning home, checked the offer again, and then drove to the defendants to get the car. The plaintiff checked the chassis numbers and the odometer reading, which was 182,000 km, wrote down a contract for the sale of the car with the defendants, and paid the defendants the amount of PLN 22,500. The defendants provided the plaintiff with the car's documents with the repair booklet from the mechanic. After a few days, the plaintiff called the defendants informing that the lamp of the oil gun had come on in the car and a message in English appeared. The defendant told the plaintiff that this had not happened before. After some time, the plaintiff called again that he had gone to the workshop and had been instructed to change the oil and filters and suggested that the car be returned to the workshop where it was serviced. The defendant gave the plaintiff the address of the workshop where the car was serviced. After the car was checked in the workshop, the claimant was informed that the turbine was damaged and that the repair cost was PLN 4,000. The plaintiff called the defendant informing him of this. The parties discussed the defendants' share in the cost of repairing the car, but no agreement was reached. The claimant turned to an appraiser to perform a visual inspection of the car. The appraiser prepared a description which showed that the car was manufactured in 2005 and had undergone previous bodywork and paint repairs. During the use of the purchased car, the claimant traveled about 3,000 km.

  • Zagadnienie prawne

    What is a defect in the meaning of guarantee regulations?

  • Decyzja

    The possibility of being held liable under the warranty for physical defects is not a consequence of the damage suffered by the buyer. A defect within the meaning of Art. 556 § 1 of the Civil Code is a defect that reduces the value or usefulness of the car.

    URL: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/i-nsnc-171-20-rekojmia-za-wady-fizyczne-rzeczy-523303611

    Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst

  • Powiązane sprawy

    Brak wyników

  • Literatura prawnicza

    Brak wyników

  • Wynik

    The Supreme Court has rejected the General Prosecutor’s appeal.