The plaintiff had bought an air-to-water heat pump and an energy accumulator from an online shop to be used as a main heating system of the plaintiff's house. Information on the applicability of the device to various buildings was provided on the leaflet. Before placing the order, the plaintiff informed the defendant about the plaintiff's house size, floor heating and water consumption. Thereafter the defendant recommended the device which was finally chosen by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff demanded in his claim for the annulment of the sale, due to the device being insufficient to heat the building and water in the manner which the defendant had informed, as well as compensation for damages. The defendant rejected the claim, because the plaintiff had not presented any reliable evidence of the device’s defectiveness and claimed that the device was equivalent with the provided information. The question is whether the device has a defect which entitles to the annulment of the sale.
The District Court dismissed the claim because the defendant had not guaranteed anything specific on the leaflet and, furthermore, because the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence on the device’s functionality.
The plaintiff appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal. Based on the defendant’s recommendation of the device for the plaintiff, the Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had a justifiable reason to assume that the device would suit his use of purpose. Information on the leaflet regarding the heating area was later changed from 200 to 125 square meters, which supported the plaintiff’s claim. After the reclamation the defendant had neglected to inspect the device.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the annulment of sale and obligated the defendant to pay the demanded damages to the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court and demanded a reverse of judgment. The plaintiff demanded the Supreme Court to reject the appeal.