Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2., (a) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2., (b) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2., (c) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2., (d) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 4. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 4., - Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 3. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 6. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 3. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 7, 1.

(1) The significance of a defect in order to assess the degree of non-conformity of the good with the conditions of the contract, is based on the impact that that defect has to the usefulness and overall operation of the good, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The following should be taken into account: the agreement of the parties, the purpose of the product’s use and the specific circumstances of the case.

(2) If another defect or lack of an agreed property appears at a later stage, the buyer may re-exercise the rights provided by law (i.e. a) request the repair or the replacement of the good, b) request a price reduction or c) withdraw from the contract).

(3) The above rights provided by law to the buyer are exercised within two years from the delivery of the good. Within the first six months from the delivery the burden of proof regarding the defect or the lack of any agreed property of the good vests in the seller, whereas after that deadline the burden of proof shifts to the buyer.

(4) Νon-correspondence of the good to the contract is considered as key type of deviation, i.e. the deviation from the uses or the qualities which are reflected in the contract or drawn from it.

The product was a pair of boots and its defect was that the color of the inner part of the leather was fading out; this had as a result that the feet of the plaintiff were colored. The defect appeared immediately after the purchase of the product. The defendant sent the product to the manufacturer, who argued that the shoes were made of natural and not synthetic leather and therefore, naturally the color had the tendency to fade. Subsequently, the defendant claimed: 1) that the above-described quality of the leather constituted proof of high quality and not a defect, 2) that the product had the predicted performance in accordance with its specifications, 3) that the product has absolutely no risk towards the consumers and 4) that the defendant is neither liable nor bears any obligation of replacement. Nevertheless, the plaintiff requested to withdraw from the contract of sale.

(1) What determines the significance of a defect of a good?

(2) Does the buyer have any rights in case a defect or lack of an agreed property appears at a later stage?

(3) What is the deadline to exercise the rights provided by law to the buyer in case a good is defective or lacks any agreed property?

(4) What is the key type of deviation of the object of the sale?

The court took into account the following factors: 1) what is the liability of the seller according to the law when selling a product, 2) what are the provisions of the law that interpret the true will of the parties’ statements and the true meaning of a contract, 3) the fact that the plaintiff had requested to withdraw from the contract of sale and 4) the high price of the product of the luxurious (as per the defendant’s statement) footwear. The latter especially was considered as an additional criterion that determined the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff for the performance of a high quality product . Therefore, the court held that such a high-quality product would have been expected at least not to decolorate in such an extent to leave stains on the customer’s foot. The allegations of the defendant (that no defect exists and that the defendant bears no liability) were considered as unsatisfactory. In addition the court highlighted the fact that the existence of any risk is not a prerequisite to determine whether the seller’s liability exists or not. A defect means, according to contract law, any deviation from the agreed or expected contractual properties. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to request a replacement of the defective product with another one of the same value.

URL: http://www.synigoroskatanaloti.gr/docs/reports/2013-11-20.%CE%A3%CF%85%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%9B%CE%95%CE%9C%CE%9F%CE%9D%CE%97%CE%A3.pdf

Πλήρες κείμενο: Πλήρες κείμενο

Δεν υπάρχουν αποτελέσματα

Δεν υπάρχουν αποτελέσματα

The court recommended to the defendant to replace the footwear in question with other footwear of the same value of plaintiff’s choice and called both the defendant and the plaintiff to notify in writing whether they accept the present written recommendation (plaintiff’s request for withdrawal was denied).