Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=5989&idCountry=19&plang=mt&action=maximize&print=print
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 15:48:12+00:00

Document:
968/1992/2
Arthur Valletta Vs Cutajar Mario Noe
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 1.
The consumer has not renounced of his rights conferred to him by a guarantee of the seller.
Consumer bought a television set which was covered by a commercial guarantee valid for three years. Under this guarantee the guarantor – being defendant company – undertook to change or repair any part of the set which proved to be defective. Some months after purchase the television started to malfunction with prominent white spots on the television screen. It resulted that certain parts of the television were defective. Consumer immediately contacted defendant company about the shortcomings. Despite trying to repair the set, by also replacing certain parts, the defects remained.
Defendant company contested these claims alleging that factually consumer’s claims were unfounded and that the limitation period during which consumer could make his claims had expired. The court of first instance found in favour of consumer ordering defendant company to repair the defective parts within three months under the supervision of technical expert. If defendant company failed to do so then consumer was to undertake the repairs recovering the costs from defendant company. Subsequently defendant company contested the decision of the first court before the Court of Appeal.
Defendant company argued that consumer by his actions had renounced to the remedies that he had under the commercial guarantee. The Court disagreed with this line of argumentation, holding that from the evidence it resulted that what the consumer wanted was for the television set to be repaired and to have a clear and good picture, and that at no stage did he renounce to this. The Court further noted that initially defendant company did take the set and made some repairs, but the defects remained and consumer continued to insist for an appropriate remedy which required the replacement of a defective tube. The Court noted that there was no circumstance that indicated that consumer had irrevocably renounced to his rights under the commercial guarantee. Defendant company had an obligation to rectify the defect in the set, and could not in the circumstances argue that it was not obliged to undertake the required repairs on the basis that consumer had kept the defective set. The Court said that defendant company was bound to comply with any undertakings that it made and to do the required repairs and replacements of the defective parts. The Court therefore confirmed the decision of the first court in favour of the consumer.
S.T.O. PRIM IMHALLEF
ALBERT J. MAGRI
Seduta ta' l-1 ta' Frar, 2008
Appell Civili Numru. 968/1992/2
Arthur Valletta
Mario Cutajar bhala direttur ghan-nom u in
rapprezentanza
tas-socjeta` Cutajar Limited
Rat ic-citazzjoni pprezentata mill-attur li tghid hekk:
“Peress illi l-attur xtara minghand certu Mario Delia
television sett tal-kulur tal-marka “Normande” bil-prezz ta’
Lm569 liema sett kien kopert minn garanzija ghall-perjodu
ta’ tlett snin mahruga mis-socjeta` konvenuta kif jidher
mid-dokumenti esebiti, fis-7 ta’ Awissu 1989. U press li
dan is-sett kellu u ghandu difett fit-tubu tieghu u partijiet
ohra u nonostante diversi promessi da parti tal-konvenut
nomine li anke kien ha s-sett diversi drabi ghat-tiswija,
dan id-difett baqa’ jissussisti;
“U billi a tenur tal-garanzija citata l-konvenut kien obligat
jibdel jew isewwi minghajr hlas kull parti tas-sett li tirrizulta
difettuza. U billi ghalhekk il-konvenut naqas minn dan lobligu
tieghu a tenur ta’ l-istess garanzija illi ghadha
veljanti;
“Ighid ghalhekk l-attur talab li l-konvenut nomine jghid
ghaliex, ghar-ragunijiet premessi, din il-Qorti m’ghandhiex:
“1. tordnalu jirrepara jew jibdel skond il-kaz, it-tubu tassett
tat-televizjoni u partijiet ohra li jirrizultaw difettuzi fuq
imsemmi fi zmien qasir u perentorju iffissat minnha stess;
“2. fin-nuqqas tawtorizza lill-attur jirrepara jew jibel skond
il-kaz l-istess tubu a spejjez tal-konvenut, dejjem taht issupervizjoni
ta’ perit tekniku appuntat mill-istess Qorti;
“Bl-ispejjez kontra l-konvenut nomine li gie ngunt ghassubizzjoni;”
Rat in-nota ta’ l-eccezzjonijiet tal-konvenut nomine li in
forza taghha eccepixxa illi:
“1. Illi t-talbiet attrici huma nfondati fil-fatt u fid-dritt u
ghandhom jigu michuda bl-ispejjez kontra tieghu peress
illi ma jezistux id-difetti allegati li jezistu fis-sett tattelevision
‘Nomende’ minnu mixtri;
“2. Salvi eccezzjonijiet ohra permessi mil-ligi;”
Rat in-nota ta’ l-eccezzjonijiet ulterjuri tal-konvenut
nomine li in forza taghha eccepixxa illi:
1. Illi bla pregudizzju ghall-eccezzjonijiet gia` mressqa leccipjent
nomine qed jissoleva l-eccezzjoni talpreskrizzjoni
ta’ l-azzjoni attrici bl-gheluq ta’ xahar skond l-
Artikolu 1431(1) tal-Kodici Civili (Kapitolu 16):
Rat is-sentenza moghtija mill-Prim Awla tal-Qorti Civli fl-1
ta’ Dicembru, 1997, li in forza taghha cahdet l-eccezzjoni
ulterjuri tas-socjeta` konvenuta, bl-ispejjez ta’ l-istess
kontra l-istess socjeta`; minn din is-sentenza ma sarx
appell;
Rat is-sentenza definittiva moghtija mill-Prim Awla tal-
Qorti Civili fit-2 ta’ Mejju, 2005, li in forza taghha iddecidiet
il-kawza fis-sens illi:
“fl-ewwel lok tichad l-eccezzjonijiet kollha tal-konvenut
nomine fil-mertu u billi fit-tieni lok tilqa’ t-talbiet attrici u
tordna li l-konvenut nomine ghandu jirripara jew jibdel
skond il-kaz, it-tubu tas-sett tat-televizjoni in kwestjoni u
dana fi zmien tlett (3) xhur millum u taht is-supervizjoni ta’
l-espert tekniku Jason Markham li appuntu qed jigi
nominat ghal dan l-iskop u fin-nuqqas tawtorizza lill-attur
jirripara jew jibdel skond il-kaz l-istess tubu a spejjez talkonvenut
nomine dejjem taht is-supervizjoni ta’ l-espert
tekniku Jason Markham;
“Spejjez kollha kontra l-konvenut nomine”;
Dik il-Qorti tat is-sentenza taghha wara li ghamlet issegwenti
konsiderazzjonijiet:
“Fic-citazzjoni l-attur jippremetti li akkwista sett tattelevizjoni
tal-kulur tal-marka “Normande” bil-prezz ta’
Lm569, kif kopert, dan is-sett, minn garanzija ghallperjodu
ta’ tlett snin mahruga mis-socjeta` konvenuta. Lattur
ikompli jippremetti li s-sett ghad ghandu difett fit-tubu
u dan nonostante li, diversi drabi l-konvenut nomine ha listess
sett ghat-tiswija. L-attur qed isostni li a tenur ta’ limsemmija
garanzija l-konvenut nomine kien obligat jibdel
jew isewwi minghajr hlas kull parti tas-sett li tirrizulta
difettuza. Ghalhekk l-attur qed jitlob li l-konvenut nomine
jigi ordnat li jirrepara jew jibdel, skond il-kaz, it-tubu tassett
tat-televizjoni in kwestjoni u fin-nuqqas l-istess attur
jigi awtorizzat jirrepara jew jibdel, skond il-kaz, l-istess
tubu huwa stess a spejjez tal-konvenut;
“Il-konvenut nomine eccepixxa li d-difetti allegati mill-attur
ma jesistux. L-istess konvenut nomine eccepixxa
ulterjorment li l-azzjoni attrici hi preskritta bl-gheluq ta’
xahar skond l-Artikolu 1431(1) tal-Kodici Civili (Kapitolu
16). Din l-eccezzjoni ulterjuri giet michuda bid-decisjoni ta’
din il-Qorti (diversament presjeduta) tal-1 ta’ Dicembru
1997. Ghalhekk fadal li jigi deciz il-mertu tal-kwestjoni
bejn il-partijiet;
“Fir-relazzjoni kongunta ta’ l-esperti gudizzjarji,
konfermata bil-gurament fil-kors tas-seduta tas-seduta
tas-6 ta’ Frar 2002, l-esperti tekniku kkonkluda li s-sett in
kwestjoni fih difett li jista’ jkun kagunat jew minn xi
komponenti li jikkontrollaw id-degausing circuit jew inkella
difett fit-tubu kagunata mis-shadow mask li tista’ tkun
imcaqalqa. Sabiex jigi stabblilit definittivament ghal xix hu
dovut id-difett hu necessarju li s-sett jinfetah u bazikament
jissewwa;
“Fl-ewwel kaz biex jinbidel il-komponent hemm involuta
spiza minima. Fit-tieni kaz ikun necessarju li t-tubu
jinbidel. Il-perit tekniku ukoll ikkonkluda li jekk is-sett jigi
mcaqqlaq minn fejn hu hemm probabilita` kbira li ssir
hafna hsara u allura t-TV ikun “beyond economical repair”.
Il-perit tekniku ma setax jghid jekk t-TV in kwistjoni kienx
difettuz mill-bidu jew jekk id-difett kienx ir-rizultat ta’ xi
haga li grat wara l-akkwist. Inoltre t-tip ta’ tubu in kwistjoni
gie “phased out” hafna zmien ilu. Meta l-istess perit
tekniku gie eskus mill-attur huwa qal li l-probabilita` hi li ddifett
hu fit-tubu;
“Il-perit legali kkonkluda li, tenut kont tal-provi prodotti,
jirrizulta li s-sett tat-televizjoni in kwestjoni zviluppa difetti
fi zmien li l-garanzija relattiva kienet vigenti. L-istess perit
legali kkonkluda li jirrizulta li l-konvenut nomine kien lest li
jaghmel dak kollu li kien necessarju, izda kien jidher li lattur
kien tilef il-fiducja fih. Huwa kkonkluda ukoll li l-attur
kien naqas meta rrifjuta li jikkonsenja s-sett lis-socjeta`
konvenuta kif hemm indkat fil-garanzija. Il-perit legali
kkonstata ukoll li l-attur dejjem baqa’ juza s-sett in
kwestjoni. Il-perit legali finalment ikkonkluda li fl-opinjoni
tieghu t-talbiet attrici ghandhom jigu accettati izda ssocjeta`
konvenuta ghandha tigi ordnata li taghmel dawk
ir-riparazzjonijiet, li fl-opinjoni tal-Perit Tekniku huma
kompatibbli ma’ difetti minhabba l-fatt li issa s-sett tattelevizjoni
gie akkwistat hafna zmien ilu;
“L-imsemmija konkluzjonijiet ta’ l-abbli esperti gudizzjarji
jimmeritaw li jigu adottati. In effett ma jirrizulta xejn li jista’
jgieghel li din il-Qorti li tiskarta jew b’xi mod tvarja dawn listess
konkluzjonijiet. Ghalhekk it-talbiet attrici ghandhom
jigu akkolti;
“Fl-ahhar nett ghandu ukoll jigi rilevat li l-konvenut
nomine, fin-nota ta’ l-osservazzjonijiet responsiva tieghu,
donnu qed jissolleva eccezzjoni ohra fis-sens li l-attur
baqa’ ghal dan iz-zmien kollu, naturalment anke
“pendente lite”, jinqeda’ u jara u jgawdi t-television “de
quo” minghajr ma rritornah jew minghajr ma ghadda ghaddepozitu
tieghu taht l-awtorita` ta’ dina l-Qorti u dana kif
kien obbligat li jaghmel skond il-ligi qabel jew
kontestwalment mal-prezentata tac-citazzjoni tieghu. Hu
ovvju li f’dan l-istadju l-konvenut nomine, minnghajr iddebita
awtorizzazzjoni, ma jistax jissolleva eccezzjoni ta’
dan it-tip. Ghalhekk il-Qorti ma tistax u mhux ser tidhol
f’din il-kwestjoni;”
Rat ir-rikors ta’ l-appell tal-konvenut nomine li in forza
tieghu, ghar-ragunijiet hemm premessi, talab li din il-Qorti
joghgobha thassar u tirrevoka s-sentenza moghtija millewwel
Qorti fit-2 ta’ Mejju, 2005, u dana billi tichad ittalbiet
ta’ l-attur u tilqa’ l-eccezzjonijiet u l-aggravji tieghu
bl-ispejjez taz-zewg istanzi kontra l-attur appellat;
Rat ir-risposta ta’ l-attur li in forza taghha, ghar-ragunijiet
hemm premessi, talab li l-appell tal-konvenut nomine jigi
respint u s-sentenza appellata konfermata, bl-ispejjez tazzewg
istanzi kontra l-konvenut nomine;
Rat l-atti kollha tal-kawza u d-dokumenti esebiti;
Semghet lid-difensuri tal-partijiet;
Ikkunsidrat;
Illi l-attur kien xtara sett tat-televizjoni tal-kulur tal-marka
“Normende” minghand is-socjeta` konvenuta. Dan ilbejgh
kien kopert b’garanzija kuntrattwali, li kif jinghad fiha
stess inghatat “as an extra benefit, and does not effect
your legal rights”. Din il-garanzija inghatat ghal zmien tlett
snin mis-7 ta’ Awissu, 1989. Din il-garanzija kienet
tipprovdi kopertura fis-sens li gej:
“Under this guarantee your set is covered for electrical,
electronic and mechanical faults. Cutajar Ltd. undertakes
to exchange or repair free of charge including labour to
the purchaser, any part of the set found to be defective
within the stated period provided that the set has been
used under normal circumstances and by the original
purchaser only. This guarantee does not in any way
cover damage or faulty operation resulting from misuse
and or mishandling of the set in connection to unsuitable
electricity supply ..... the liability of this Company under
this guarantee is strictly limited to the repair or exchange
of the defective part only .... Should any defect arise and
a claim under guarantee become necessary, the
appliance should be returned to Cutajar Ltd....”
Ftit wara li l-attur xtara t-televizjoni, beda jinduna bi spots
jew patches fl-istampa, u ghalkemm ikkuntattja lis-socjeta`
konvenuta biex din telimina dan id-difett, it-tiswija li
ghamlet is-socjeta` konvenuta ma swiet ghal xejn ghax listampa
baqghet l-istess.
L-ewwel Qorti qabdet perit tekniku biex jezamina s-sett
tat-televizjoni u dan irrelata li t-televizjoni kien difettuz u
kkonkluda li d-difett kien fit-tubu li, ghalhekk, kellu jinbidel.
L-ewwel Qorti abbraccjat il-konkluzjonijiet tal-perit tekniku,
u ordnat lis-socjeta` konvenuta tirripara jew tbiddel it-tubu
tas-sett tat-televizjoni in kwistjoni fi zmien tlett xhur.
Is-socjeta` konvenuta appellat minn din is-sentenza, blaggravju
jkun li darba li l-attur, wara li nduna bid-difett,
zamm u kompla juza t-televizjoni, ma jistax aktar jinqeda
bil-garanzija li kienet tkopri dak is-sett.
Ghalkemm dan l-aggravju kien tressaq ukoll ghallkonsiderazzjoni
ta’ l-ewwel Qorti, ma kienx jifforma parti
mill-eccezzjonijiet sollevati mis-socjeta` konvenuta, u lewwel
Qorti korrettement irrimarkat li hi ma setghetx tidhol
f’dik il-kwistjoni, la darba dak l-ilment tressaq biss fin-nota
ta’ l-osservazzjonijiet, u mhux bhala eccezzjoni ulterjuri
wara d-debita approvazzjoni. Fil-fatt, din il-Qorti, fil-kawza
“Christina v. Mizzi” deciza fis-27 ta’ Marzu, 2003, kienet
osservat li eccezzjoni ulterjuri tista’ tigi sollevata biss bilpermess
tal-Qorti. Hekk ukoll, fil-kawza “Camilleri v.
Aquilina”, deciza minn din il-Qorti fis-16 ta’ Marzu, 2004,
gie osservat li:
“...in-nota ta’ l-eccezzjonijiet tinkwadra l-linja difensjonali
tal-konvenut ghat-talbiet li jkunu saru fic-citazzjoni u mhux
korrett u lanqas ma ghandu jigi permess li, fi stadju talprovi
jkun maghluq u meta din tithalla ghassottomissjonijiet
orali jew biex jigu prezentati noti ta’ losservazzjonijiet,
il-kontroparti tigi rinfaccata b’linja
difensjonali gdida minghajr ma jigu osservati r-regoli
procedurali”.
Kwindi, l-ewwel Qorti kienet korretta meta osservat li la
darba d-difiza tas-socjeta` konvenuta kienet ristretta ghannuqqas
ta’ difetti fit-televizjoni in kwistjoni, ma kienx lecitu
ghall-istess socjeta` li tohloq lamenteli ohra fl-istadju meta
l-gbir tal-provi kienu nghalqu u meta l-kawza kienet
imhollija ghas-sottomissjonijiet tal-partijiet.
Apparti dan, din il-Qorti ma tarax li l-ilment tas-socjeta`
konvenuta huwa sorrett fil-ligi. Din il-Qorti taqbel malgurisprudenza
li ghaliha ghamlet referenza s-socjeta`
konvenuta, fis-sens li kompratur ma jistax jinqeda “mirrimedji
li taghti l-ligi” meta, wara li jinduna bid-difett floggett
mixtri, hu jibqa’ jzomm dak l-oggett, juzufruwixxi
minnu u jibqa’ jgawdih; pero`, f’dan il-kaz, l-attur mhux
qed isejjes l-azzjoni tieghu fuq allegat difett mistur, u
lanqas fuq in-nuqqas tal-kwalita` mweghda – lanjanzi li
ghalihom il-ligi tforni lix-xerrej b’rimedji partikolari u
appoziti – izda a bazi tal-garanzija kuntrattwali ta’ bejnu u
l-venditur konvenut. Fi kliem iehor, l-attur mhux qed jitlob
li jibbenefika mir-rimedji li taghti l-ligi, izda mir-rimedji
kuntrattwali li l-venditur intrabat li jaghti bil-garanzija. Ixxerrej,
f’dan il-kaz, mhux qed jezercita l-garanzija legali,
imma dik konvenzjonali ghat-tiswija, u, ghalhekk, ir-regoli
li jikkondizzjonaw ir-rimedji li taghti l-ligi, mhux
necessarjament japplikaw ghal kaz ta’ azzjoni bazata fuq
garanzija kuntrattwali.
F’dan il-kaz din il-garanzija moghtija lill-attur ma tipprovdix
li x-xerrej, malli jinduna b’xi hsara, ghandu minnufih
jirritorna s-sett tat-televizjoni lis-socjeta` konvenuta, izda
tipprovdi li f’kaz ta’ “electrical, electronic and mechanical
fault” rizultat ta’ uzu “under normal circumastances”, dak
il-fault ghandu jigi rrangat mis-socjeta` venditrici, li
zammet id-dritt li tiehu s-set fil-hwienet taghha, f’kaz li dan
ikun mehtieg biex tkun tista’ ssir it-tiswija necessarja.
Meta l-attur induna bid-difett fl-istampa, hu mill-ewwel
irrapporta s-sitwazzjoni lid-ditta venditrici, li ghalkemm
ippruvat issewwi s-sett tat-televizjoni, u anke biddlet hafna
mill-parts ta’ l-istess (hlief ghat-tubu), baqghet ma
ottemperatx ruhha mat-termini tal-garanzija li hija stess tat
lill-attur. Ma jirrizultax li l-attur ghamel bis-sett tattelevizjoni
xi haga oltre milli uzu normali, u lanqas ma
jirrizulta li bl-uzu li hu ghamel tas-sett kabbar il-hsara jew
b’xi mod ippregudika l-possibbilita` ta’ tiswija fit-termini talgaranzija.
Dan mhux kaz fejn l-attur zamm l-oggett u
baqa’ juzah minghajr ma ressaq ilment lill-venditur, izda
hu mill-ewwel interpella lis-socjeta` konvenuta taht ilgaranzija,
u meta baqa’ bla sodisfazzjon ressaq dawn ilproceduri
biex jinghata r-rimedju opportun taht l-istess
garanzija. Dan, ghalhekk, mhux kaz ta’ abbandun taddrittijiet
li kellu l-attur.
Is-socjeta` konvenuta qed tallega li bl-agir tieghu, l-attur
“irrinunzja” ghar-rimedju li taghti l-garanzija. Din il-Qorti
ma tarax li tista’ taccetta dan l-argument. Mill-provi
jirrizulta li kull ma ried l-attur kien li sett tat televizjoni
jissewwa u l-istampa tkun wahda tajba u cara, u qatt ma
irrinunzja ghal dan. Fil-bidu, s-socjeta` konvenuta hadet
it-television set u ghamlet xi tibdiliet fih, izda d-difetti
baqghu jidhru, u l-attur baqa’ jinsisti ghar-rimedju.
Ghall-argument tas-socjeta` konvenuta jghodd dak li qalet
din il-Qorti (Sede Inferjuri) fil-kawza “Parfitt v. Krea
(Malta) Ltd.”, deciza fit-12 ta’ Dicembru, 2007, fis-sens illi:
“Fuq is-sekwela tal-fatti maghrufa hu ferm difficli ghal din
il-Qorti li taccetta l-proposizzjoni tar-rinunzja ghar-rimedju
esperit mill-appellata. Ma thossx li hu sewwa illi ficcirkostanzi
maghrufa s-socjeta` appellanti twieghed li
taghmel bosta affarijiet biex tirrimedja ghall-inadempjenzi
taghha stess, thalli z-zmien ghaddej inutilment bla ma
taghmel xejn, ma taghmilx lanqas ix-xoghlijiet rettifikatorji
proposti mill-appellata, biex, imbaghad, meta tigi
azzjonata, tirrinfaccja lill-appellata illi hi zammet il-kcina u
wkoll, ghamlet l-ghazla taghha u ma tistax aktar
tindetreggja lura ghax tkun irrinunzjat. Opportunement flewwel
lok ghandu dejjem jigi mfakkar bhala punt ta’ ligi illi
r-rinunzji “di strett diritto” jridu jirrizultaw minn fatti univoci
li minnhom ma tista’ tingibed ebda kongettura ohra hlief ilpropozitu
evidenti tar-rinunzja.”
F’dan il-kaz, ma jezistux cirkostanzi li jindikaw
irrifjutabbilment rinunzja ghar-rimedju taht il-garanzija. Issocjeta`
konvenuta kellha obbligu taghmel tajjeb ghaddifett
li kellu s-sett tat-televizjoni, u ghan-nuqqas taghha li
taghmel dan, ma tistax aktar tmur lura u tirrinfaccja lillattur
b’argument li mhix aktar tenuta issewwi ghax zamm
l-oggett. Dak li hu obbligu taghha li taghmel, trid taghmlu,
aktar u aktar meta ppruvat, imma ghal xejn, issewwi u
issa qed tirrifjuta li taghmel dik il-haga li gie identifikat li
ghandu jsir, cioe`, tiswija jew bidla tat-tubu.
Ghaldaqstant, ghar-ragunijiet premessi, tiddisponi millappell
interpost billi tichad l-istess u tikkonferma ssentenza
appellata, b’dan li t-terminu ta’ 3 xhur prefiss
mill-ewwel Qorti jibda jiddekorri mil-lum.
L-ispejjez tal-kawza ghandhom jithallsu kollha missocjeta`
konvenuta appellanti.

References: Qorti 

Qorti 
 Qorti 
 Qorti 

Qorti 
 Qorti 
 Qorti