Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: 4.afd. B-2136-06
    • Member State: Denmark
    • Common Name:Forene-de Dan- ske Mo-torejere som manda-tar for Poul Elmbo versus Auto-gaarden
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 01/11/2007
    • Court: Vestre Landsret (Others)
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff:
    • Defendant:
    • Keywords:
  • Directive Articles
    Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2.
  • Headnote
    The case concerned a car dealer’s sale of a new car to a consumer. The car did not have all the standard equipment mentioned on the import firm’s homepage. Therefore, the car did not conform with the contract, cf. the Sale of Goods Act § 76, subsec. 1, no 1 and 2 (implementing art. 2,2,d and art. 2,4 of the Consumer Sales Directive). The dealer had not met the consumer’s claim for repair/replacement. The consumer was entitled to an appropriate reduction of the price.
  • Facts
    Before buying a car, a new VW Passat, 2.0 FSI, Comfortline, the consumer consulted the import firm’s homepage where it with reference to the model in question among other things was mentioned that “the comfort seats, installed as standard, with integrated adjustable lumbar support offer an excellent sitting comfort. The back and lumbar supporters are electronically adjustable, vertically as well as horizontally....” Shortly after receiving the car the consumer noticed that only the driver’s seat was electronically adjustable. He immediately complained and was told that this feature was only standard equipment as far as the driver’s seat was concerned. The seller refused to comply with the consumer’s claim that the other front seat be replaced free of charge by an electronically adjustable one. The consumer then brought the case before the court claiming an appropriate reduction of the price (equivalent to the cost of replacing the other front seat with an electronically adjustable one).
  • Legal issue
    The High Court decided the case in favour of the consumer.

    In its decision the High Court stated that the consumer on the basis of the statement (quoted above) on the import firm’s homepage had a legitimate expectation that both front seats were electronically adjustable and that these features were standard equipment. Furthermore, the court found that the seller had not been able to show that the consumer before the sale had received information giving him reason to question the accuracy of the statement on the import firm’s homepage. Neither had the seller shown that the statement in question had not influenced the consumer’s evaluation of the car. Therefore, the car did not conform with the contract, cf. § 76, subsec. 1, no. 1 and 2, of the Sale of Goods Act, implementing art. 2, 2(d) and art. 2,4 of the Consumer Sales Directive (99/44).

    Because the seller had not complied with the consumer’s claim of replacement the consumer was entitled to an appropriate reduction of the price according to the Sale of Goods Act § 78, subsec. 4, implementing art. 3,5,2nd indent of the Consumer Sales
  • Decision

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result