Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=7087&idCountry=19&plang=en
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 14:27:08+00:00
Document Index: 32408

Matched Legal Cases: ['Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ']

Mifsud vs Fairdeal Furniture (Malta) Limited
Fairdeal Furniture (Malta) Limited
conformity with the contract, consumer goods, consumer rights, right of redress
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2.
(1) The choice of which remedy is to be pursued under Article 74 of the Consumer Affairs Act (which implements Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC) is the choice of the consumer and not of the trader.
(2) Negligence on the part of the consumer with regard to the goods purchased from the trader would need to be proved by the trader in the case that the consumer proves that such goods are in breach of Article 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act (which implements Article 73 of Directive 1999/44/EC), that is that such goods are defective or not in conformity with the description and specifications in the contract of sale.
The plaintiff discovered that some tears started to appear on the sofa which he bought from the defendant company only a short while after delivery. The plaintiff asked the defendant for such sofa to be replaced. After the defendant company failed to go ahead with this request the plaintiff initiated proceedings in front of the Consumer Claims Tribunal to rescind the contract. The Tribunal accepted the claim and ruled in favour of the defendant. Aggrieved by the decision, the defendant company appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that i) the sofa could not have torn in such a short time without some negligence on the part of the consumer ii) the defendant company offered to repair the sofa, but the plaintiff refused iii) in such cases the defendant company regularly repaired the product iv) there was a discrepancy between the plea of the plaintiff which stated that the sofa started to tear after 4 weeks and the sworn declaration which stated 7 weeks.
The court stated that any sort of negligence on the part of the plaintiff would need to be proved by the defendant and any sort of evidence was lacking in this respect. Rather, the court argued that the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the defendant delivered to the consumer a sofa which did not conform with the description and specifications in the contract of sale, thus breaching Article 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act or Article 2 of Directive 1999/44/EC.
Furthermore the court rejected the argument of the defendant company which insisted that in such situations it typically repairs the defective object. The court argued that in such cases the defendant company has no right to dictate what kind of remedy is to be given, because as set out by Article 74 of the Act (implementing Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC), save any exceptions contained in the Act, the choice of which remedy is to be pursued lies in the hands of the consumer who may either choose to repair or replace the goods, or ask for a refund.
Meanwhile, as long as the consumer stuck to the time limits in which a complaint may be made in terms of Articles 78 and 79 of the Act (which implement Article 5 of Directive 1999/44/EC) it did not matter if there was a discrepancy between the plea of the plaintiff which stated that the sofa started to tear after 4 weeks and the sworn declaration which stated 7 weeks.
(1) At whose option is the remedy for lack of conformity of the goods provided by Article 74 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which implements Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC?
(2) Can the trader absolve himself of responsibility of non conformity with the contract, in view of the consumer's negligence when considering Article 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act (which implements Article 2 of Directive 1999/44/EC)?
The defendant’s appeal was rejected and the appealed decision was confirmed by the court.
Rat l-Avviz tat-Talba ta’ Gordon Mifsud tas-6 ta’ Mejju 2014 quddiem it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur permezz ta’ liema huwa ppremetta li xtara sufan minghand id-ditta konvenuta u wara erba’ gimghat mill-kunsinna nnota li parti minnu kienet diga’ bdiet titqatta’. Huwa cempel lil certu Arnold Vella tal-Fair Deal Furniture u nfurmah b’dan. Wara diversi weghdi ikkonkludew li s-sufan kien ser jinbidel sa Mejju 2014. L-attur talab li din il-promessa tigi konfermata bil-miktub (email) mid-ditta konvenuta b’indikazzjoni tad-data tal-kunsinna. Pero’ Arnold Vella ghan-nom ta’ tali ditta mhux talli rrifjuta talli meta l-attur infurmah illi kien sejjer jipprocedi permezz tal-Ufficcju ghall-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur, dan kien arroganti hafna mieghu u qallu li ma jibzax minnhom. L-attur talab lit-Tribunal jordna lid-ditta konvenuta thallsu danni ta’ elf, tmien mija u ghaxar Ewro (€1,810).
Rat ir-risposta ta’ Fairdeal Furniture tal-14 ta’ Mejju 20141 permezz ta’ liema eccepiet illi: (i) it-talbiet tal-attur huma nfondati fil-fatt u fid-dritt; (ii) dak li qieghed jallega l-attur gara tort unikament tieghu minhabba l-modi u l-prodotti li ntuzaw sabiex jitnaddaf is-sufan; u (iii) minghajr pregudizzju d-ditta konvenuta offriet li bil-mezzi taghha ssewwi l-hsarat u dan sahansitra a spejjez taghha stess, offerta li tibqa’ fis-sehh bhala policy tal-operat taghha.
Rat id-decizjoni tat-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur li ddecidiet hekk:
“It-Tribunal qed jilqa’ t-talba tar-rikorrenti, u jordna lis-socjeta’ ntimata thallas is-somma ta’ elf, tmien mija u ghaxar Ewro (€1,810) lir-rikorrenti, u b’dan illi s-sufan jigi propjeta’ tas-socjeta’ ntimata wara li jsir il-hlas, u bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess socjeta’ ntimata.”
Dan wara li l-istess Tribunal ikkunsidra illi:
i.	L-attur kien xtara sufan minghand id-ditta konvenuta u wara ftit dan beda jitqatta’;
ii.	Minkejja li kellu l-weghda minghand is-socjeta’ ntimata li kellu jirrangah, ma gara xejn;
iii.	Id-ditta konvenuta ssottomettiet li kienet qeghda tistenna l-konsenja minn barra u li kellha tibdel is-sufan, pero’ ma sehh xejn minn dan;
iv.	Wara li sema’ x-xhieda u ra r-ritratti prezentati mill-attur, it-Tribunal emmen il-verzjoni tal-attur li s-sufan veru beda jitqatta’, u li ma kienx tort tieghu;
v.	Id-ditta konvenuta kellha bizzejjed zmien biex tirranga s-sufan, pero’ dan qatt ma sar.
Is-socjeta’ Fair Deal Furniture (Malta) Ltd hassitha aggravata minn din id-decizjoni u appellat minnha quddiem din il-Qorti. L-attur wiegeb2. Waqt is-seduta tal-24 ta’ Gunju 20163 deher rapprezentant tas-socjeta’ appellanti u l-appellat debitament assistiti mid-difensuri taghhom u saret trattazzjoni.
Il-Qorti rat l-atti.
1.	Il-proceduri quddiem it-Tribunal gew istitwiti mill-attur kontra Fair Deal Furniture, ir-risposta giet prezentata mill-istess ditta u l-bqija tal-proceduri tmexxew fil-konfront taghha inkluz id-decizjoni tat-Tribunal. L-appell quddiem din il-Qorti izda sar minn Fair Deal Furniture (Malta) Ltd li l-Qorti tifhem hija l-kumpanija li tiggestixxi dan in-negozju tal-ghamara. L-appell ghalhekk qed jigi meqjus bhala appell tat-terz interessat.
2.	Il-Qorti tinnota li fil-parti ntroduttorja tad-decizjoni tat-Tribunal l-arbitru jghid li huwa sema’ x-xhieda guramentata tal-attur kif ukoll ix-xhieda tar-rapprezentanti tad-ditta konvenuta. Mill-atti pero’ ma tirrizulta ebda xhieda ta’ xi rapprezentant, punt li tqajjem ukoll mid-difensur tal-attur appellat waqt it-trattazzjoni quddiem din il-Qorti. Jirrizulta biss li waqt l-unika seduta li nzammet quddiem it-Tribunal fl-10 ta’ Gunju 20144 deher l-attur mhux assistit u zewg avukati ghad-ditta konvenuta. Kien biss l-attur li xehed bil-gurament waqt dik is-seduta. Dakinhar stess il-kaz gie differit ghas-sentenza.
L-appell tas-socjeta’ Fair Deal Furniture (Malta) Limited.
L-aggravju huwa bazat fuq hames ilmenti relatati mal-apprezzament tal-provi mit-Tribunal.
Mill-ftit provi mressqa jirrizulta li:
i.	Skont ix-xhieda guramentatata tal-attur5, huwa xtara sufan konsistenti f’two u three-seater minghand id-ditta konvenuta u wara seba’ gimghat dan beda jitqatta’. Meta lmenta maghha gie mwieghed li s-sufan ser jitbiddel ma’ wiehed gdid. Pero’ baqa’ bla risposta. Huwa pprova kemm il-darba jikkuntattja d-ditta konvenuta bit-telefon izda ghalxejn. Meta fl-ahhar fi Frar 2014 irnexxielu jkellimhom qalulu li s-sufan kien ser ikollu jitbiddel f’Mejju 2014 ghax ma kellhomx in stock u kienu qed jistennew kunsinna gejja minn barra. L-attur talab li dak li ntqal lilu jitnizzel bil-miktub izda r-rapprezentant tad-ditta rrifjuta. Ukoll, ghalkemm l-istess ditta kellhom kunsinna ghand il-gara tieghu xorta ma ndenja ruhu jmur jara s-sufan ebda rapprezentant taghha. L-attitudni tar-rapprezentant kienet deplorabbli ghall-attur;
ii.	Gew esibiti wkoll tlett emails mill-attur lil Arnold Vella tad-ditta konvenuta mibghuta bejn is-27 ta’ Jannar u s-6 ta’ Frar 20146 relatati mal-istess ilment, liema emails ma ntweriex li gew imwiegba mid-ditta konvenuta;
iii.	Gew ezibiti tlett ritratti tas-sufan kif kien sas-27 ta’ Jannar 2014.
Aggravji.
1.	Is-socjeta’ appellanti ma tarax kif dan is-sufan seta’ jsirlu l-hsara allegata minghajr xi nuqqas serju da parti tal-attur appellat.
Quddiem it-Tribunal ma tressqet ebda hjiel ta’ prova dwar xi nuqqas imqar zghir da parti tal-attur li seta’ kkawza jew ikkontribwixxa ghall-hsara lis-sufan. Il-konvenuta lanqas biss ghamlet tentattiv li tipprova tirribatti jew tikkonfronta dak muri mill-attur imqar b’kontro-ezami. Fit-twegiba li pprezentat quddiem it-Tribunal, l-appellanti allegat li kienu l-modi u l-prodotti li ntuzaw sabiex jitnaddaf is-sufan li kkawzaw il-hsara. Izda ma tressqet ebda prova dwar dan. L-unika konkluzjoni logika li jifdal hi li l-appellanti, bi ksur tal-artikolu 73(1) tal-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur (Kap 378 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta) kkonsenjat lill-appellat sufan li ma kienx konformi mad-deskrizzjoni u l-ispeċifikazzjonijiet fil-kuntratt tal-bejgħ. Dan jinghad partikolarment fid-dawl tal-fatt li kif qal l-attur fl-email lil Arnold Vella tas-27 ta’ Jannar 2014 “When we were at your showroom you assured us that the quality of leather is durable. I don’t think this is a good quality sofa.” Mhux ragonevolment mistenni li sufan, jekk ikun ta’ kwalita’ tajba, wara ftit gimghat li jkun inxtara jibda jitqatta’ f’partijiet differenti minnu.
Jirrizulta wkoll li l-attur ottempra ruhu mal-obbligi tieghu skont il-ligi u avza mmedjatament lid-ditta konvenuta b’din il-hsara anke bil-miktub entro l-parametri stabbiliti fl-artikolu 79 tal-Kap 378.
2.	Skont is-socjeta’ appellanti t-Tribunal naqas li jikkonsidra l-fatt li s-socjeta’ appellanti kienet offriet li ssewwi l-hsarat protestati mill-attur izda li kien l-istess attur li kien insista li s-sufan jigi mibdul.
Ghalkemm l-appellanti qalet li ppruvat issewwi l-hsarat fis-sufan, m’hemmx prova ta’ dan. Kieku riedet issewwi s-sufan, jekk seta’ jissewwa, kellha bizzejjed zmien. Dak li jirrizulta mill-provi hu pjuttost kaz fejn il-kummercjant ma tax kaz tal-ilment tal-konsumatur, kif sfortunatament jigri kemm-il darba.
Mill-provi hu evidenti li ghalkemm l-appellat attivament ghamel kull sforz b’telefonati u emails biex jinghata rimedju ghall-hsara, gie rinfaccjat b’inerzja totali da parti tal-appellanti li ghalkemm f’punt partikolari weghditu li se tirrimpjazzah b’sufan gdid malli jidhol l-istock f’Mejju 2014, baqghet inadempjenti.
3. Ghas-socjeta’ appellanti, f’kazijiet bhal dawn hija dejjem insistiet li tista’ biss issewwi l-hsara li tkun saret.
F’kazijiet bhal dawn is-socjeta’ appellanti m’ghandha ebda dritt li tiddetta hi x’ghandu jkun ir-rimedju ghall-hsara ghaliex salv ghall-provvedimenti ohra tat-Taqsima X tal-Kap 378, l-ghazla tar-rimedju hi f’idejn il-konsumatur li skont il-ligi ghandu wkoll l-ghazla ta’ aktar minn rimedju wiehed – it-tiswija, r-rimpjazzar tal-prodott jew ir-rifuzjoni tal-flus imhallsa ghall-prodott. L-artikolu 74 tal-Kap 378 huwa car:
“74. (1) Il-kummerċjant ikun responsabbli li jipprovdi rimedju skont dan l-artikolu lill-konsumatur għal kull nuqqas ta’ konformità fl-oġġetti li kienet teżisti meta l-oġġetti ġew ikkunsinnati mill-kummerċjant lill-konsumatur. Bla ħsara għad-disposizzjonijiet l-oħra ta’ din it-Taqsima, għandu jkun il-konsumatur li jiddeċiedi x’rimedju għandu jitlob.
(2) Fil-każ ta’ tali nuqqas ta’ konformità, il-konsumatur ikollu jedd jew –
(a) li l-oġġetti jinġiebu konformi bla ebda ħlas billi jissewwew jew jiġu rimpjazzati, skont l-artikolu 75(1), jew
(b) li jirċievi ħlas lura ta’ tnaqqis fil-prezz adattat jew li ssir ir-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt għar-rigward ta’ dawk loġġetti, skont l-artikolu 76(1) jew (2).”
Kif inghad, ma rrizultax mill-provi x’tip ta’ diskussjonijiet setghu saru dwar it-tiswijiet li ssemmi s-socjeta’ appellanti, u jekk l-attur kienx ghazel l-ewwel li jaccetta l-offerta tat-tiswija. Li hu zgur izda huwa illi anke jekk l-attur kien accetta li tipprova ssir xi tip ta’ tiswija, din baqghet ma saritx. Ghalhekk it-Tribunal kien gustifikat li josserva li d-ditta konvenuta kellha zmien bizzejjed biex issewwi s-sufan. Ma’ dan il-Qorti zzid li l-istess ditta kellha wkoll zmien bizzejjed biex izzomm il-weghda taghha lill-attur li tirrimpjazza s-sufan ma’ iehor gdid.
4. Illi fil-provi kollha tieghu l-attur, illum appellat, jonqos milli jipprezenta xi forma ta’ dokumentazzjoni sabiex juri, jew milli jiddikjara taht gurament, meta kien li huwa xtara s-sufan.
Huwa minnu li dokumentazzjoni specifika f’dan is-sens ma tressqitx. Izda ma hemm ebda kontestazzjoni li dan is-sufan inxtara minghand id-ditta konvenuta. Certament ghalhekk li hija ghandha fil-pussess taghha d-dokumentazzjoni kollha relattiva ghall-akkwist. F’kull kaz mill-provi jista’ jigi dedott il-perjodu li fih inxtara s-sufan. L-email tas-27 ta’ Jannar 2014 tindika li l-attur kien xtrah diversi gimghat qabel. Fix-xhieda guramentata tieghu l-attur jghid li l-hsara bdiet timmanifesta ruhha wara seba’ gimghat mill-akkwist filwaqt li fl-Avviz tat-Talba jghid li l-hsara dehret wara erba’ gimghat mill-kunsinna, ergo, s-sufan inxtara f’xi zmien lejn l-ahhar ta’ Dicembru 2013. Id-ditta konvenuta, li kienet irceviet dawn l-emails u tramite d-difensuri taghha semghet ukoll ix-xhieda guramentata tal-attur, f’ebda hin ma cahdet li l-akkwist tas-sufan sehh f’dan il-perjodu, u lanqas gabet provi li juru mod iehor, li jfisser li hija kienet qed taqbel mal-perjodu indikat mill-attur.
5. Skont is-socjeta’ appellanti, hemm inkonsistenza fil-ftit provi mressqa mill-attur peress li filwaqt li fit-talba tieghu l-appellat iddikjara li s-sufan kien beda jitqatta’ wara erba’ gimghat, waqt ix-xhieda guramentata tieghu huwa qal li s-sufan kien beda jitqatta’ wara seba’ gimghat.
Minn dak li rrizulta mill-provi, meta l-attur qal li l-hsara bdiet timmanifesta ruhha wara seba’ gimghat kien qieghed jirreferi ghall-mument meta xtara s-sufan, filwaqt li meta fl-Avviz tat-Talba huwa semma l-erba’ gimghat kien qieghed jirreferi ghall-mument tal-kunsinna tas-sufan. M’hemm xejn inkonsistenti f’dan. Jekk id-ditta konvenuta kellha xi dubju dwar dan setghet ikkonfrontatu f’kontro-ezami, haga li m’ghamlitx. F’kull kaz, l-attur kien pjenament fit-terminu mpost fl-artikolu 78 tal-Kap 378 sabiex iressaq l-ilment tieghu quddiem it-Tribunal.
Il-Qorti tinnota wkoll li waqt it-trattazzjoni quddiemha, s-socjeta’ appellanti argumentat li l-hsara saret biss fuq is-sufan two seater. Din l-allegazzjoni izda ma hi sorretta minn ebda prova. La r-ritratti esibiti u lanqas ix-xhieda tal-attur ma jaghtu ndikazzjoni li l-hsara kienet fuq sufan wiehed biss. Fi kwalunkwe kaz, difficilment jitwemmen dan l-argument meta hadd mir-rapprezentanti tas-socjeta’ appellanti ma ndenja ruhu jaccedi fir-residenza tal-attur biex jispezzjona s-sufan.
Finalment, il-Qorti tqis li dan il-kaz seta’ facilment gie rizolt amikevolment ferm qabel ma wasal quddiem it-Tribunal li kieku d-ditta konvenuta agixxiet b’mod aktar professjonali u aderixxiet mal-obbligi mistennija minnha bhala kummercjant skont il-ligi.
6.	Fl-ahharnett waqt it-trattazzjoni l-appellanti ghamlet riferenza ghas-sentenza tal-Prim’Awla, Joseph Vella nomine vs Anthony Migneco tad-9 ta’ Gunju 2005 li fost affarijiet ohra kienet itrattat dwar id-dritt ta’ xerrej li jitlob ix-xoljiment ta’ bejgh meta jzomm l-oggett mixtri. F’dan ir-rigward l-appellanti ma tatx eccezzjoni quddiem it-
Tribunal u lanqas ma ssemma bhala aggravju. M’ghandux ikun li waqt it-trattazzjoni, l-appellant iressaq argument godda li qatt ma jkun ghamel accenn ghalihom u li dwarhom lanqas ma jkunu tressqu provi.
Ghal dawn il-motivi l-Qorti tichad l-appell bl-ispejjez kontra s-socjeta’ appellanti.
Peress li dan l-appell hu frivolu, tikkundanna lis-socjeta’ appellanti thallas penali ta’ tlett mitt ewro (€300) lill-Gvern (Artikolu 22(5) tal-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur (Kap. 378).