(1) The court ruled that the defendant infringes the rules on unfair commercial practices by stipulating in the standard consumer contracts a clause which allows consumers to return purchased products exclusively to the defendant's office, upon receipt by the defendant, during working hours and with prior telephone notification.
The court established that the provisions of applicable law do not specify how consumers should exercise a right to return purchased goods. In the opinion of the court, the requirements contractually imposed by the defendant may hinder or even prevent the consumer of exercising its rights. In the case at hand, the defendant conducted its business activity in the entire country by concluding contracts during exhibitions and fairs. Hence, this would oblige consumers willing to return purchased products, to bear the additional costs of a journey and take a day off from work, the court reasoned. In the opinion of the court, no rational reason exists why consumers cannot return purchased products via mail or by courier.
(2) In addition, the court held that providing consumers with a declaration form of withdrawal from the sales contract containing incorrect information about the legal basis of this entitlement equally constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
As the use of a false legal basis may impede consumers to exercise their legal rights, this must be considered a misleading commercial practice. The legal basis of the right to withdraw from a contract concluded outside the business premises of the trader is article 2, sec. 1 of the Act of the protection of certain consumer rights and liability for the damage caused by hazardous products, while the declaration form indicated as a legal basis article 7 sec.1 of the aforementioned act, which refers to withdrawal from the contracts concluded at a distance.
In each case, the period during which the consumer may withdraw from the contract is calculated differently. Therefore, the court held, stating such an incorrect legal basis may hinder or even prevent the consumers from exercising their rights. In the opinion of the court such practice distorts or is likely to distort the economic behavior of the average consumer after the conclusion of the sale contract.
URL: http://decyzje.uokik.gov.pl/dec_prez.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/dec_prez.nsf/FB88DB1F5549B766C12579600039D995/Body/Decyzja%20nr%20RPZ%20-27-2011%20z%2014%2011%202011%20r%20%20_Harmedy%20Sp%20%20z%20o%20o%20_.pdf
Pełny tekst: Pełny tekst