For three years, the courts tried to prove the truth about the product defect, sentencing about 37,000. euros

100,000 Euro truck broke down in a matter of months

Three years ago, the environmental management company Deforta faced a dispute over a low-quality product. 2017 After winning a public tender in July and concluding a contract with Energijos Skirstymo Operatorius (ESO) for air route cleaning, limb pruning and tree felling, Deforta purchased a new forklift for more than one order from the truck dealer Bobcat in Lithuania. Technikos uostas. Like 100,000. euros.

After several months of truck operation (166 hours), the new truck broke down. Deforta delivered the truck to the Technical Port for warranty repairs, but the latter terminated the warranty after accusing the truck of drowning, that is, misuse, Delphi says Justas Sankaitis, a lawyer who represented Deforta in court.

Deforta hired independent experts who found that the truck was not submerged and its engine was of poor quality. However, even after these conclusions, the Technical Port did not change position. The suspected misuse of the product was due to the truck being sprayed with dirt.

“The loader works on the ground, many rotating parts, working in outdoor conditions, it is natural that dirt splashes. The truck was sprayed with dirt in the cab and in the engine compartment. There are also photos on the Bobcat website where the truck is moving on dirt, which advertises that it can. However, the experts immediately discovered that the engine failed not because of dirt, but because of an internal defect ”, says the lawyer.

The leasing company prevented the termination of the contract

As the company acquired the truck through Luminor lizingas, it was asked to terminate the contract for the purchase and sale of a low-quality truck. In this case, the truck would be returned to the Technical Port, which would return the money paid for it to Deforta and Luminor Lizingas. According to the lawyer, the leasing company obstructed the process and refused to terminate the contract.

Subsequently, Deforta terminated the contract to purchase the truck and requested the court to refund the money under the terminated contract. In the counterclaim, the Technical Port challenged the termination of the contract in accordance with its version of the sinking of the truck. The case also involved the truck’s manufacturer, Doosan Bobcat, who also took the position that the truck had failed due to improper use and not a manufacturing defect.

Luminor Lizingas does not protect its clients, on the contrary, they may even be formally harassed for no reason. Initially, Deforta wanted to resolve the problem amicably and turned to Luminor Lizingas to help his client by financing the purchase of the truck. We were asked to allow the termination of the contract because we already had an expert opinion that the truck broke down not because of the sinking but because of internal problems.

Luminor, upon receiving these findings, ignored them, did not trust them and, by illegally refusing to consent to terminate the contract, prevented his client Deforta from defending his rights in court. “Luminor said he was awaiting the forensic experts’ conclusion,” says J. Sankaitis.

The position did not change even after the forensic examination.

The forensic examination revealed that the truck’s engine had failed due to a manufacturing defect – the use of excess sealant during assembly. Both the Vilnius Regional Court and the Lithuanian Court of Appeal confirmed the findings of the forensic examination on the causes of the truck breakdown.

However, even after the conclusions of the forensic experts, Luminor did not change his position in the case, so, as the lawyer observes, defending the interests of the Technical Port, not of his own client, but of the Technical Port, which offered the Defortai. truck to buy through Luminor Leasing.

“If Luminor had immediately agreed to terminate the contract, we could have been forced out of court, a peaceful settlement would have been more realistic. The Technical Port took advantage of Luminor’s refusal, which was one of the main reasons it challenged the termination. Since he saw that Luminor did not give his consent to terminate the contract, he supported them, which probably made him feel more courageous and litigated fully, “says Deforta’s lawyer.

Sent about 37 thousand. euros

Finally, the Vilnius Regional Court determined that Luminor Lizingas had illegally prevented Deforta from unilaterally terminating the purchase contract and determined that these actions by Deforta were legal.

The court “Defortai” of “Technikos uostas” awarded 20.5 thousand. 16.7 thousand euros. damages. The court also ordered the Technical Port to refund the amount paid by Luminor Lizingas (approximately 79.8 thousand euros).

According to the lawyer, the company has already complied with the court decision and paid the money.

It is possible to draw conclusions about the attitude of “Technikos uostas” towards its customers and the technical guarantee service of the products sold. Instead of repairing a substantially new truck and handing it over to a customer, she was charged with fraud, drowning and misuse of the truck in a sense, completely unfounded and without evidence, but has not proven this in the case.

The result is that the company bought a new truck, worked with it for several months and had to sue for three years to get paid the money for a defective product ”, concludes the lawyer.

Three years without goods or money

According to the interlocutor, the litigation took a long time, since on average these cases take a year or a year and a half. But the most important thing is that Deforta has been without a functional product and without money for three years. The company had to hire a more expensive truck to do the job, otherwise it would have been in breach of its obligations to ESO. As a result, he suffered damages that the court awarded.

When asked if it is common for a company that sells forklifts to interpret goods with customers in court, J. Sankaitis says he does not know more about the same cases. However, he considers that there may be minor cases that have been resolved out of court: “Perhaps customers, if a lower amount drops, will pay as much.”

At that time, according to the lawyer, Luminor Lizingas is usually involved in the courts, but it has been difficult to say if there has been a similar situation:

Luminor: We recommend that you seek a consensus with the seller

Representatives of Luminor Lizingas did not comment on this matter, as well as on the situation itself “due to bank secrecy.” Indrė Baltrušaitienė, Head of Bank Communications, presented the following comment from Luminor Lizingas:

“The leasing company only finances the purchase and sale of goods, that is, the buyer of the goods chooses the property to be acquired and its seller, with whom he coordinates the conditions of purchase and guarantee of the property. The leasing company settles accounts with the seller of the goods and gives the buyer the opportunity to use the property immediately, paying periodic fees for an agreed period of time until the property is fully redeemed.

Thus, regardless of whether the goods purchased or rented are financed with their own or borrowed funds, the seller of the goods is responsible for their quality. We recommend that buyers always evaluate in advance whether a product is being purchased or rented, and whether the warranty service applied meets their expectations.

The termination of the contract for the sale of goods is possible on the basis of the cases provided for in the contract or when a legal basis for it arises.

When a customer is faced with a situation where a lease has been entered into for a defective product, we recommend that they seek a general agreement with the seller of the product on how to replace or return the product. If a mutually acceptable solution is not found and a dispute arises, it will be resolved by a court in accordance with the procedure established by law “

Delphi He also tried to contact representatives of the Technical Port, but received no comment. Once received, the text will be completed.