European e-Justice Portal - Case Law
Close

BETA VERSION OF THE PORTAL IS NOW AVAILABLE!

Visit the BETA version of the European e-Justice Portal and give us feedback of your experience!

 
 

Navigation path


menu starting dummy link

Page navigation

menu starting dummy link

Case Details

Case Details
National ID 10/2007
Member State Malta
Common Name Erminia Parfitt vs Krea (Malta) Limited
Decision type Other
Decision date 12/12/2007
Court Qorti ta’ l-Appell (Appellate court)
Subject
Plaintiff
Defendant
Keywords

Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2.

Judgment concerning the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price
Plaintiff filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal asking for a refund of three hundred and sixty Maltese liri which she paid on for kitchen furniture which was delivered after well the stipulated date of delivery and which also had various shortcomings. The Tribunal decided in favour of plaintiff awarding her the amounts requested, observing that defendant company admitted that it was late in delivering the kitchen and that there were some shortcomings. Tribunal further noted that defendant company had various opportunities in addressing the aforesaid shortcomings, but failed to rectify matters adequately.

Defendant company appealed this decision arguing that the Tribunal did not abide with the requirements of article 79 of the Consumer Affairs Act as consumer did not notify the trader of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from when she became aware of the said shortcomings. Furthermore the Tribunal acted contrary to article 76 of the said Act, when it decided to grant the remedy of rescission of contract when the shortcomings were minor and insignificant.
The Court noted that plaintiff at the moment of the delivery and assembly of the kitchen furniture had made various complaints about shortcomings and imperfections such as wrong colours and fittings. Defendant company accepted that these existed and promised to rectify them, but failed to do so. Defendant company had ample time to rectify matters and offered to replace part of the kitchen furniture, however the samples shown to plaintiff were not acceptable to her and she opted instead for a reduction in the price. The reduction in price offered to her was not acceptable to her, hence plaintiff decided to make her claim.

The Court determined that the shortcomings could not be considered as being minor or insignificant since the material imperfections and other shortcomings were such as to impact negatively on the use and value of the product in a significant manner. In such instances the law gives the buyer the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price of the product purchased. In such circumstances it was incorrect for defendant company to promise to rectify matters, let time pass and not undertake to make the required rectifications. In such circumstance the Court in deciding in favour of plaintiff, held that plaintiff could not be precluded from seeking either the rescission of the contract or a reduction of the price of the product bought.
Full Text: Full Text

No results available

No results available