The Court decided unanimously:
I – About the right to rescind the contract: Art. 4 Decree-Law 67/2003, as amended by Decree-Law 84/2008, provides the consumer with the following rights due to lack of conformity of the goods purchased: a) repair b) replacement c) reduction in the price, d) rescission of contract. Although Directive 1999/44/EC ranks these rights, distinguishing two levels of consumer reaction (the first includes repair or replacement of the asset and the second price reduction or rescission of the contract), the regulation as it stands in DL 67/2003 art. 4 para 5 makes no hierarchy, so that the consumer can exercise any of the four rights, except if the exercise of a right became impossible or if it constitutes an abuse of right. Thus, at least theoretically B may request rescission of the contract on the basis of the defects found on the vehicle to which he was not aware before, because the national Portuguese law on sale of consumer goods did not transpose the solution of the Directive that excludes the option of the consumer for choosing rescission when the lack of conformity is irrelevant. Abuse of rights does not apply in this case, because there is not a marked disproportion between the right of rescission and the size of defects that give reason to this right. Accordingly, as there is no evidence to consider abusive exercise of the right to rescission (Decree-Law 67/2003, art. 4 para 5 and Civil Code, article 334), and being satisfied the conditions required by Decree-Law 67/2003, art. 2 para 2 lit. a), art. 3 and art. 4, the claim of rescission should be granted, if there were not the issue on limitation period.
II – About the limitation period (caducidade) of the right: at the time of this claim the amendments of DL 84/2008 (art. 5-A) into DL 67/2003 were still not in vigour. Consequently the original wording of provision DL 67/2003 art. 5 para 4 still applies (limitation period of the right in 6 months, to be counted since the requirement). The right of the claimant was extinct by caducidade before DL 84/2008 entered in vigour, so that Art. 297 para 2 Civil Code on enlargement of the limitation period does not apply.