Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 9 Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 11

EE:HMK:2019:2.18.18256.18788

1. In case of non-bulky items, it is the obligation of the consumer to bring the arguably defective good to the establishment of the seller for determination of the existence of the defect. Such an obligation does not constitute a significant inconvenience for the consumer, which if it did, would entitle the consumer to termination of the contract.

2. The withdrawal period of 14 days does not restart once again for the good bought online but replaced later because the original good was defective.

The consumer had bought a robotic vacuum cleaner from the seller, financed by a third party. The vacuum cleaner soon had a technical problem and later, the new vacuum cleaner sent as a replacement also got a technical problem. The seller asked the consumer to bring the arguably defective cleaner to the shop in order to determine the existence of a defect. The consumer refused to do so and eventually terminated the sales contract and asked to be refunded the sales price paid by him to the credit provider. Additionally, the consumer used his right of withdrawal from a distance selling contract as he had bought the cleaner online.

1. The most important issue in this dispute was whether there was enough proof that the bought consumer good had a lack of conformity that would entitle the consumer to terminate the contract.

2. Can a consumer use the right of withdrawal for a replaced consumer good if he had bought the original good online but got possession of the original good more than 14 days before withdrawal?

1. The Court did not accept the consumer’s claim as there was no evidence that the vacuum cleaners had been defective. The Court held that it is reasonable to require from the consumer that he brings the arguably defective food to the seller’s place of establishment for inspection and determination of the defect. As the consumer had refused to do so there is no proof that the vacuum cleaner actually was defective in the first place. The Court admitted that the situation could be different if the consumer had bought a bulky item but it is not the case with a vacuum cleaner: in the case of a non-bulky item, consumers cannot reasonably expect that the seller comes and collects the bought good from the consumer’s place of residence.

2. The Court ruled that the consumer had lost his right of withdrawal as he got possession of the originally bought good more than 14 days before the declaration of withdrawal. According to the Court, the withdrawal period does not restart again for the replacement good.

URL: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendid/fail.html?fid=258170107

Täistekst: Täistekst

Tulemused puuduvad

Tulemused puuduvad

1. During the course of this judgement the Court clarified the obligations of the parties of a consumer sales contract under Estonian law as to the delivery of the arguably defective good to the seller’s place of establishment. The Court follows the reasoning of the CJEU in Fülla case.

2. The consumer lost the case. The case is important as the Court clarified that the withdrawal period of 14 days for distance contracts does not restart again for the good bought online but replaced later because the original good was defective.