Teismų praktika

  • Bylos aprašymas
    • Nacionalinis numeris: 3K-3-406/2013
    • Valstybė narė: Lietuva
    • Bendrinis pavadinimas:link
    • Sprendimo rūšis: Aukščiausiojo Teismo sprendimas
    • Sprendimo data: 19/07/2013
    • Teismas: Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
    • Tema:
    • Ieškovas: D.Š.
    • Atsakovas: UAB “Borgalita” and BUAB “Kardera”
    • Raktažodžiai: B2C, capacity of trader, consumer rights, goods, guarantee
  • Direktyvos straipsniai
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 1, 2., (e) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6
  • Įžanginė pastaba
    The contractual guarantee can be applied only under the conditions which are agreed between the traders and the consumers.
  • Faktai
    The Plaintiff and the Defendants had concluded a sale - purchase agreement under which the Defendants sold and installed a roof on the Plaintiff’s house. A 10 year contractual guarantee was issued under the sale – purchase agreement provided that the guarantee was applied only in cases when the corrosion covered 5 or more percent of the roof area. After 7 years the Plaintiff noticed that in some places the roof was affected by corrosion.

    The Defendants claimed that the contractual guarantee could only be applied when the corrosion covered 5 or more percent of the roof area, whereas the Plaintiff demanded to apply the contractual guarantee and fix the roof area despite the fact that the corrosion affected only much smaller area
  • Teisės klausimas
    Can the consumers enforce their rights under contractual guarantee despite the fact that not all the conditions provided in the guarantee are met?
  • Sprendimas

    The court in this case found that the contractual guarantee did not apply since only 0,04% of the roof area was affected by the corrosion and the contractual guarantee explicitly provided the conditions under which it was applied. However the court also noted that in cases when contractual guarantee cannot be applied, then the party could claim to apply a statutory guarantee. Nevertheless, the court concluded that since the Plaintiff was a consumer he could have applied other legal remedies to protect his rights and therefore accepted the Plaintiff’s request to terminate the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

    URL: http://eteismai.lt/byla/11688072246425/3K-3-406/2013

    Visas tekstas: Visas tekstas

  • Susijusios bylos

    Rezultatų nėra

  • Teisinė literatūra

    Rezultatų nėra

  • Rezultatas
    The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was terminated