Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: P/0221/06/10
    • Member State: Slovakia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 28/07/2010
    • Court: Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia (Court of first instance, Banskej Bystrici)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 2. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 3.
  • Headnote
    A "money back guarantee" must not be accompanied by a clause that the functionality of the returned goods is to be checked by an expert at the consumer’s expense.
  • Facts
    The defendant offered consumers to return goods within 30 days as of the day of pur-chase. The terms and conditions contained a clause saying that the money back guarantee does not apply to goods (such as cell phones, digital cameras, cameras, computers, note-books, ovens and stoves), where it cannot be found out without difficulties whether they have been damaged, altered or modified by the customer, with the consequence that their condition will have to be examined by an authorized service provider. In these cases the guarantee was made subject to the consent of the consumer to cover the costs of such ex-amination.
    By providing these incomprehensible and ambiguous information causes or is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that would otherwise neuro-beat because deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to consumer rights, including the right to replacement of product or refund under special legislation (§ 623 Civil. Act.), or the risks he may face in breach of § 8. 4 of the Act
  • Legal issue
    The clause was held violating the law (in particular because it would also cover hidden defects that the goods already had before the purchase). Moreover, the clause constitutes an unfair commercial practice, because it was found to be misleading and confusing the average consumer in relation to his or her rights, including the right to replacement or refund under § 623 Civil Code
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result