[ad_1]
Who is right in this situation, buyers or sellers? The State Service for the Protection of Consumer Rights was involved in this dispute and the final verdict was delivered by a court. True, even two decisions were made and only the second of them was favorable to the buyers: the Vilnius Regional Court declared that the seller must return the money to the buyers for the pipes sold.
A plumbing company in the capital and its clients, a Lithuanian actress who works for an American company and her husband, who is director of programs for a radio station popular with young people, became involved in this story, which was tried by the judges. It is true that the transaction with the seller was carried out by a woman, so she defended her violated rights and her husband became involved as a third party. The data version of this pair does not have the right to publish consent.
The couple married in Vilnius six years ago and established their homes, so they signed a contract with a plumbing company to buy expensive Italian plumbing. Under this agreement, the spouses paid more than 14 thousand euros.
Less than two years after delivery and installation of the merchandise, the company received a complaint from a woman that the top cover of the Bellosta Stresa faucets was peeling off, so it returned the merchandise and requested a refund of more than 4.7 thousand. EUR. The sellers did not respond to the claim, so the buyer went to the State Consumer Protection Service.
The specialists who found that the plumbing used on the ground floor of the bride and groom’s house – faucet, sink siphon, built-in shower faucet, hand shower with elbow, bathtub hand shower, bathtub faucet, bidet faucet, valves and bathtub siphon – has an essential defect since it detracts from the aesthetic image.
Furthermore, these products do not meet the quality requirements that the consumer could have reasonably expected when purchasing the sanitary ware.
According to representatives of the Consumer Rights Protection Service, these defects may have been caused by improper maintenance of plumbing products, as the seller provided instructions to the consumer for the maintenance of plumbing products in one language not official.
The service, which made a decision partially favorable to buyers, decided that it has the right to terminate the sales contract, and the seller must return more than 3.8 thousand for it with substandard goods. EUR. This amount was calculated for plumbing fixtures on the first floor of the spouses’ home, while plumbing on the second floor of the home, rarely used by the spouses, was adequate.
Associative photo
According to the service, “the seller did not provide the consumer with instructions for the maintenance of the toilets in the official language, for which he improperly complied with the obligation to provide information, which resulted in plumbing defects.”
The sellers disagreed with the conclusion of the Consumer Protection Service and appealed their decision to the court. After examining the dispute, the Vilnius District Court stated that the buyer probably “carefully selected a means of cleaning plumbing supplies that is adapted to more durable surfaces”, thus causing the plumbing defects itself. In addition, the court noted that the fact that the seller did not provide the buyers with information on the care of the goods was irrelevant: the buyer “could, if deemed necessary, ask the seller before concluding the sales contract and not after using the wrong cleaning agent. “
The actress and her husband, who disagreed with the court decision, went to the Vilnius Regional Court, appealing the decision, which in their opinion was unfounded. According to them, the requirement to maintain sanitary ware with a cleaner that is suitable for use in acid-sensitive products is not recorded anywhere in the case.
“The chemical properties of gold have been known for many millennia; gold is not sensitive to acids or alkalis, and it was the gold that was (should have been) covered by the plumbing products we buy,” says the complaint. “I thought I was buying expensive, quality gold-plated plumbing, because that’s what I asked for when I got to the store.”
The woman is convinced that the products that were sold to her were of poor quality, since she never cleaned some of them with a cleaner, but “their coating (which looks like a transparent varnish) still started to come off”.
According to her, the seller even refused to provide information on the production of sanitary ware.
“There is no information in the file on how the toilet was manufactured, what its composition was (what materials, what are its alloys, how thick it was coated with gold or its compound, etc.), so it is impossible to determine if it was of good quality (that is, how they were manufactured, tested, etc.), when and how they were tested (inspected, tested), ”the actress’s lawsuit claims to the court.
He stressed that the State Consumer Rights Protection Service had repeatedly asked the seller to provide documents for the manufacture of plumbing products, but it was replied that “the manufacturer simply does not have them.”
Associative photo
“In principle, plumbing products cannot be produced without any requirements, they are consumer goods, we will find them in all residential or non-residential premises,” said the woman, who is involved in a dispute with the seller over a plumbing of poor quality. Surprised.
At the time, the seller disagreed with the buyer’s claims, explaining that the plumbing products were of good quality, only that the plumbing products were damaged by using the wrong cleaners. In addition, the seller noted that the buyers received a maintenance order for the goods, a manufacturer’s warranty card, which “clearly indicated the manufacturer’s maintenance information.”
“Information on this manufacturer is provided not only in the manufacturer’s Italian language, but also in English, which is well known to the defendant because he works for a US-owned company,” the seller noted. In addition, according to her, the legislation does not impose on the seller the obligation to provide a maintenance instruction, much less in writing.
“The responsibility of the seller for the quality of the transferred item is not absolute, the defects in the merchandise occurred after the transfer of the items to the buyer due to improper maintenance / cleaning, which eliminates the seller’s liability for defective merchandise”, said the expensive equipment company.
The Vilnius Regional Court, which examined the dispute at the time, noted that according to current legal regulations, the seller is not obliged to provide information only in writing, possibly orally, but in the event of a dispute, the seller must provide evidence that such information was provided.
According to the court, the seller stated that the information was delivered to the buyers, at that time the buyer and her spouse alleged otherwise, and there is no other data in the file that supports the provision of detailed and non-misleading information to consumers about their careful.
“The seller has not proven the fact of providing information to the consumer, in this case, contrary to the decision of the court of first instance, although the goods were defective after delivery to the buyer due to improper maintenance / cleaning, but this of in no way excludes the seller’s liability for defects, “said Judge Vaclovas Pauliko, chaired by a panel of judges.
According to the court, the spouses who bought expensive pipes “were not fully explained the instructions for the use and maintenance of the acquired goods, possible side effects.”
“This conclusion is not invalidated even by the fact that, during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, consumers indicated that the seller had advised them not to use CIF”, the panel concluded that such a fragmented presentation (without explaining CIF and by not offering a suitable specific detergent, not only did it not comply with the legal requirements to provide detailed information, but it even possibly misled consumers, forcing them to use their own knowledge and experience to choose the appropriate detergent for the care of the products. sold goods, “the court noted. is one of the fundamental rights of the consumer, and enforcing this right is one of the main objectives of consumer protection.
“The consumer’s right to information has not been guaranteed to consumers,” the court said in a ruling that took effect immediately after publication.
Associative photo
© TEISMAI.LT
In addition, the judges noted that “the obligation to provide information is mandatory and none of the parties to the contract can deny or alter it:“ It is an obligation of the seller and not a choice of law and must be enforced, whether the consumer requires it. , or not. The seller is also a business entity and therefore must be considered a professional in his field and subject to the highest standards of diligence that are applicable to him than to the consumer, including the provision of information on the characteristics and details of the use of the product. ‘
According to the judges, it is quite obvious that the employees of the company that sold the plumbing products provided only fragmentary information to the customers “they do not use the“ Cif ”cleaner, which is insufficient for the average consumer.
“In the first place, this type of information is not specific and can be understood in a completely different way by each consumer; second, without the seller specifying a specific cleaner, it is clear that buyers will search for and purchase other suitable cleaning products solely on the basis of their non-professional knowledge and experience; Third, in the context of the circumstances of the case, it is not convincing that consumers themselves, knowing the precise information, deliberately choose inappropriate (harmful) measures for the maintenance of plumbing products, which is what happened in this case, “he added. statuses of judicial sentence.
According to the judges, in the absence of objective evidence that the seller provided consumers with detailed instructions for the maintenance of plumbing supplies in the language of the state, the court found that the seller had not fulfilled its obligation to provide information as a seller. .
According to the court, nondisclosure or improper disclosure of consumer-relevant information, failure to warn the consumer, and similar violations of the consumer’s right to information can lead to poor product quality.
“The demand of the consumer to rescind the contract for the sale of toilets and to return the money paid by the toilets is fully justified,” said the panel of judges.
The losing seller will also have to pay the costs of the litigation to the buyers: more than 2.8 thousand. EUR.
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to cite DELFI as the source. .
[ad_2]
