Defendant company argued that consumer by his actions had renounced to the remedies that he had under the commercial guarantee. The Court disagreed with this line of argumentation, holding that from the evidence it resulted that what the consumer wanted was for the television set to be repaired and to have a clear and good picture, and that at no stage did he renounce to this. The Court further noted that initially defendant company did take the set and made some repairs, but the defects remained and consumer continued to insist for an appropriate remedy which required the replacement of a defective tube. The Court noted that there was no circumstance that indicated that consumer had irrevocably renounced to his rights under the commercial guarantee. Defendant company had an obligation to rectify the defect in the set, and could not in the circumstances argue that it was not obliged to undertake the required repairs on the basis that consumer had kept the defective set. The Court said that defendant company was bound to comply with any undertakings that it made and to do the required repairs and replacements of the defective parts. The Court therefore confirmed the decision of the first court in favour of the consumer.