This is one of the first judgments that already apply in Spain the Law of transposition of the Directive of 1999 (Law 23/2003), with the additional interest of having to do with elements integrated into an immovable asset.
According to the judgment, it was not documented why the vendor built a paddle court that had not been requested (and was more expensive for him), intending this way to be exonerated from the obligation of installing an agreed video camera at the entrance of the house. Given the absence of agreement on the part of the purchaser and the lack of explanation as for why he did undertake a much dearer service than the agreed one, he is obliged to comply with what was agreed.
Moreover the repair of a door’s lock was within the two year period guarantee starting from the moment of delivery established in the Law 23/2003, of 10th July (article 9) on guarantees for consumer goods, and in these cases the article 29 of the General Law for the Protection of the Consumer, Law 26/1984, has to be applied too. In these cases the article 26 of the General Law for the Protection of the Consumer has also to be applied. This Law establishes the inversion of the burden of proof, assigning to the seller the task to prove the facts in litigation such as that the problem with the lock was a consequence of its use and not an issue of its quality, which was not proved in the end.