The court stated that any sort of negligence on the part of the plaintiff would need to be proved by the defendant and any sort of evidence was lacking in this respect. Rather, the court argued that the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the defendant delivered to the consumer a sofa which did not conform with the description and specifications in the contract of sale, thus breaching Article 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act or Article 2 of Directive 1999/44/EC.
Furthermore the court rejected the argument of the defendant company which insisted that in such situations it typically repairs the defective object. The court argued that in such cases the defendant company has no right to dictate what kind of remedy is to be given, because as set out by Article 74 of the Act (implementing Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC), save any exceptions contained in the Act, the choice of which remedy is to be pursued lies in the hands of the consumer who may either choose to repair or replace the goods, or ask for a refund.
Meanwhile, as long as the consumer stuck to the time limits in which a complaint may be made in terms of Articles 78 and 79 of the Act (which implement Article 5 of Directive 1999/44/EC) it did not matter if there was a discrepancy between the plea of the plaintiff which stated that the sofa started to tear after 4 weeks and the sworn declaration which stated 7 weeks.