The interest of this judgment lies in the application by analogy of some criteria gathered in the Law of transposition of the Directive of 1999 on sales guarantees to contracts that are not drawn by consumers. According to the judgment, the contract is prior to that Law 23/2003 coming into effect, which transposed the Directive and “in which the system of protection typical of the actions of “latent defects” of the Civil Code is broaden by introducing the possibility that the purchaser demands the replacement of the delivered goods, which is not found in the system of the Code”. It rejects that the Law for the Protection of the consumers is applied, since the purchaser acquired the goods to be integrated in his business, and therefore he is not a consumer. There are two legal regimes: one when the purchaser is a consumer, who will have the special protection of the Law 26/1984 (general law for the consumers) and the Law 23/2003 (law of transposition of the Directive on sales guarantees). The other regime will apply when the purchaser is not a consumer and affect the actions for latent effects of the Civil Code (art. 1484 ff.) the general rules of contractual Law (especially, art. 1124). For cases of retail trade, it is acknowledged a six month guarantee in the Law 7/1996 that regulates that matter. Therefore, this case is ruled by the Civil Code.
The identified defects justify a reduction on the price, but cannot be the base for a rescission of the contract because there is not unsuitability of the object as such, since the lorry passed the official technical check and have not had additional breakdowns. “Although the legal text appears to recognize a right of option for the purchaser, it is obvious that the decision to resolve (terminate) the contract needs certain proportionality between the nature of the defect affecting he object and the serious consequence that it is intended to come out of it, so the demand to rescind the contract when there is not the required proportion and the object, once repaired, is in the right condition to be used normally. This criteria, for a case of certain similarity, is the one followed in the law 23/2003 of 10th July, on sales guarantees” (art. 5).
It does not exist therefore, neither total nor partial failure to comply with the obligation, in the sense of one thing given for the other (aliud pro alio), nor the defects are such that affected the suitability or quality of the goods. For all this, it is not appropriate to cancel the contract, but to reduce the price, that amounts to the expense incurred by the repairs paid by the purchaser and a compensation for damages (renting another vehicle), which makes a total of 2,912.84 euros.