The story of a man who bought furniture shows a sad truth, where a signature not placed there can lead to Business

In autumn, Vytautas Kavaliauskas, on behalf of his friend, ordered furniture from Gintaro baldai with delivery and home delivery.

V.Kavaliauskas said that when the furniture arrived, the courier gave a document to sign “that you received the furniture.” The family did so.

The man claimed to have noticed when assembling the cabinet that several small components were missing and that its board was damaged. However, because the parts are cheap and the board was damaged in an invisible place, he claims he decided not to bother with the complaints.

According to him, there were many more problems with another product: a bed bought for more than 300 euros.

“However, when we started packing the bed parts, practically all the panels were damaged,” he said.

V. Kavaliauskas stated that he immediately contacted the seller, but the company categorically refused to accept claims because the buyers had signed a deed of acceptance of the merchandise. It was written not only that customers received the products, but also that they cannot claim the quality of the furniture.

You are accused of falsifying your signature in a deceptive way

The man who bought the furniture claimed that the courier who had delivered the goods had received the signature under the deed “cleverly” because he had verbally asked to sign because “you received the goods” in the “Goods received” field.

“We didn’t even think that while we were living in Lithuania, where companies should follow the highest European standards of quality and morality, some companies try to do their best to spam you and cleverly get a signature to cover it up later so that you can’t get your back money”. , – said V. Kavaliauskas.

He claimed that he did not even understand how he could check the quality of the furniture on the spot.

“After unpacking part of the boxes, the entire room would be occupied immediately, so the unpacked furniture will have to be collected before packing the other boxes. Would the staff who actually delivered the furniture have allowed us to do it and wait a few hours for us to do it? “Asked the interlocutor.

“Don’t read what you sign”

Kristina Mažulė, representative of Gintaro baldai 15 minutes claimed that it complied with the general market rules according to which the consumer has the right to inspect the goods delivered and to accept that he has no claims.

According to her, such rules make it possible to insure against people who may manipulate, want to return goods that they do not like or that damage theirs.

The company said it had offered the customer to replace damaged parts of the furniture, but he refused to do so and asked for a refund for the item.

He approached the toilet but did not look for anything

Unable to reach an agreement with the furniture dealer, V. Kavaliauskas and his friend went to the State Service for the Protection of Consumer Rights, but without success.

In the decision of the Office that has 15 minutes, it is written that according to the Retail Rules in force in Lithuania, the buyer has the right to inspect the sold product and the seller must create conditions to do so.

However, consumer defenders argue that, in principle, it depends solely on the will, interest and action of the consumer to exercise his right to inspect the product, since it is he who has the right by law and not the obligation imposed. To the seller.

“It should be noted that the seller, in principle, is obliged only to provide the buyer with all the conditions to exercise the corresponding right, but is not obliged to demonstrate and inspect the goods acquired by the buyer on his own initiative”, states the State Service Protection of Consumer Rights.

“(…) If the consumer does not exercise his right to inspect the goods, the consumer, as a prudent and diligent counterpart, assumes the risk of defects in the goods,” he says.

The Authority also notes that the buyers indicated that they could only inspect the bedding at the time of receipt of the goods, which presupposes the conclusion that they were not damaged.

The bed was delivered to buyers on October 23, and they only approached the company three days later, citing fractures in the flat corners of the bed.

The service also notes that the bedding is crushed and that sawdust is visible at the site of mechanical damage to the panels.

“Since the consumer did not notice any external damage to the packaging when accepting the bed, it should be considered that the packaging with the details of the bed may have fallen at the consumer’s disposal,” the resolution reads.

According to him, the furniture buyers, at their own discretion and risk, began to assemble the bed themselves, so that the packaging could fall due to careless assembly, for example, pushing against the wall, sliding parts and the like.

Thus, in the absence of evidence other than that provided, the Commission concludes that the bed was free from external defects at the time of purchase and was of adequate quality and that the defects arose while the bed was in the consumer’s possession. Service.

Complaints about furniture: several hundred

Service 15 minutes reported that in January – September of this year it examined a total of 229 interior accessories disputes and 322 home appliance disputes. Consumers often complain about the quality of these products.

In about half of the cases, disputes are resolved amicably, by agreement between the consumer and the merchant, with the remainder distributed roughly to the benefit or detriment of consumers.

A total of 20 dissatisfied people applied to the institution this year regarding the quality of Amber Furniture.

Without commenting on a specific complaint, the Office has indicated that the acceptance deed signed by the consumer is one of the documents of great importance for the final decision of the litigation.

However, decisions are made “after evaluating all the evidence and explanations provided by the parties to the dispute, the established facts, and other evidence gathered,” according to the response provided.

The State Consumer Protection Service declares that in order to avoid disputes over the delivery of mechanically damaged or substandard goods to the home, consumers are always advised to inspect the product and its packaging before accepting it from the courier and not to rush to sign documents.

“Failure to inspect the goods in time afterwards makes it very difficult to prove that these defects arose before the goods were delivered to the consumer,” the service said.

“If the consumer does not exercise his right to inspect the goods, the consumer, as a prudent and diligent party in the transaction, assumes the risk of defects in the goods,” the response reads.

Evaluated the practice

Akvilė Bužinskaitė, a lawyer specialized in the field of consumer protection, states that the consumer has the opportunity to dispute the quality of the products, even if he has signed the act of acceptance of the products, even after the judgment, which does not has claims regarding quality.

“Some defects in the goods may be obvious, while others may be noticed by the buyer (consumer) only later, for example, after unpacking all parts of the goods or using them (hidden defects in the goods). Hidden defects are generally not visible, even after proper inspection of the product, so it may appear to the consumer that the product is suitable at first glance. ‘ 15 minutes said a Triniti Jurex attorney.

True, she argued that the consumer can challenge the quality of products even if he accepts them with obvious defects, but then it is difficult to prove poor quality.

The lawyer points out that during a coronavirus pandemic, carriers or couriers avoid direct contact and often leave the merchandise in the place specified by the buyer, including at the door of the apartment or in the yard.

According to her, in such a case, even after noticing obvious defects, the buyer often cannot refuse to accept the delivered goods and immediately return it to the carrier, the courier or notice the defects on the delivery documents. However, this does not deprive the buyer of the right to make claims and complaints against the seller regarding the quality of the merchandise.

We asked A.Bužinskaitė what are the most important arguments and circumstances that the State Service for the Protection of Consumer Rights and the courts take into account when evaluating disputes similar to the situation of V. Kavaliauskas with respect to the quality of the products delivered.

She listed the following:

• If the defects were obvious and could be seen by the buyer immediately (then, as mentioned above, the buyer must prove that the delivered goods were already of poor quality and that the defects were not caused by improper use);
• If the product packaging was not damaged at the time of delivery (however, damaged packaging does not always mean that the product it contains is also defective);
• For how long did the buyer inform the seller of the observed defects?
• If the buyer was able to inspect the goods correctly at the time of delivery and was not hampered;
• Are the seller’s buying and selling rules, buying and selling agreements, or other information written correctly? Its terms are clear and understandable;
• What were the circumstances of the transfer of assets (eg contactless transfer, etc.)?