(1) The court stated that the consumer must realize that repair of a product requires time; however, it can also expect that the repair will be complete within reasonable time and without creating a significant inconvenience to the consumer. If these expectations are not fulfilled, the consumer has no alternatives but to require the replacement of the product or to have the contract rescinded and the price paid for the product refunded.
(2) The court concluded that, contrary to the plaintiff’s arguments, the replacement of a part of a product could be considered a repair of this product, if as the result of the replacement the product is in conformity with the contract of sale.
(3) Next, the court concluded that, contrary to the plaintiff’s view, the replacement of a part of a product does not constitute a replacement of the product, even if the substitute part is a different, newer model of the original. The decisive aspect was whether in result the product conforms to the contract of sale.
(4) Furthermore, the court considered the 31 days’ time period for the repair of a cellular phone reasonable, because the actions taken within repair were necessary, and no unjustified delays could be established on behalf of the unknown defendant (seller), especially because the repair required time for testing and purchasing a substitute part of the product.
(5) Finally, the court did not find that the repair had created a significant inconvenience for the plaintiff, because it had another cellular phone available during the repair.
Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff had no basis for claiming the refund of the price paid for the product in addition to claiming the repair.
URL: https://www.tiesas.lv/Media/Default/Admin.tiesu%20spriedumi/Admin.raj.tiesas%20spriedumi/2013/Apr%C4%ABlis/23.04.2013/AL_2304_raj_A-01287-13_42.pdf
Pilns teksts: Pilns teksts