Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: e3K-3-332-687/2016
    • Member State: Lithuania
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Supreme court decision
    • Decision date: 27/06/2016
    • Court: Supreme Court of Lithuania
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: V.N.
    • Defendant: UAB “LoMinda”
    • Keywords: B2C, consumer rights, information obligation, information requirements
  • Directive Articles
    Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 1, Article 2, (1) Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 6
  • Headnote
    Traders should inform the consumers on associated risks of damage to their items in writing.
  • Facts
    The Defendant, which provided chemical cleaning services, cleaned the Plaintiff’s fur coat which already had some defects at the moment the fur coat was delivered over to the Defendant. The Defendant’s employee while accepting the fur coat for cleaning orally informed the Plaintiff that due to existing defects there was a possibility that the fur coat might have be damaged. Eventually, the fur coat was damaged and the Plaintiff being unsatisfied with the Defendant’s services applied to a court for adjudication of damages in the amount of the price of the fur coat.

    The Defendant was of the opinion that the consumer was properly informed about the risks related to a possible damage before the fur coat was accepted, and as evidence provided the court with the receipt, where the name of clothing, defects existing at the time of accepting the fur coat, the description of services, the date and price of the services were indicated. Moreover, the Defendant stated that he had informed the Plaintiff orally about a potential damage to the fur coat. The Plaintiff on the contrary argued that he had not been informed properly about a possible damage to the fur coat.
  • Legal issue
    The court concluded that the burden of proof as to whether the information had been sufficiently and clearly provided to the consumer rested on the entrepreneur. The court noted that the Defendant had not provided any evidence which could have proved that the Plaintiff was sufficiently and clearly informed and understood or could have understood that the fur coat could have be damaged. The court also stated that the fur coat was cleaned not paying attention to cleaning recommendations provided by a manufacturer.
  • Decision

    Does it suffice for traders to provide the consumers with information associated with risks of damage to their items orally or should such information be provided in writing?


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court awarded 50% fur coat price to the Plaintiff, given the fact that some defects of the fur coat had already existed at the moment of delivering the fur coat to the Defendant.