The court first held that as a basic principle of law no misleading information may be provided to consumers regarding their legal rights, including the right to repair or replacement.
In the court's view, the plaintiff evades the discussion with the consumer whether a defect constitutes a "non-conformity" which falls under the mandatory provisions on a right to repair or replacement free of charge, or reimbursement of the repair costs paid to the repairer.
In the court's opinion, consumers are insufficiently informed as a result of the plaintiff’s practices as the consumer will automatically deem that charges for repair of a defect established after the factory warranty period (and in absence of additional warranty) will always be validly charged to the consumer, regardless of whether the defect constitutes a "non-conformity". In this way, consumers are misled with respect to their legal rights which constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
URL: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=BT6751
Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst