Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=5963&idCountry=19&plang=mt
Timestamp: 2019-11-15 00:19:27+00:00
Document Index: 1112946

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

Erminia Parfitt vs Krea (Malta) Limited
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2.
Judgment concerning the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price
Plaintiff filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal asking for a refund of three hundred and sixty Maltese liri which she paid on for kitchen furniture which was delivered after well the stipulated date of delivery and which also had various shortcomings. The Tribunal decided in favour of plaintiff awarding her the amounts requested, observing that defendant company admitted that it was late in delivering the kitchen and that there were some shortcomings. Tribunal further noted that defendant company had various opportunities in addressing the aforesaid shortcomings, but failed to rectify matters adequately.
Defendant company appealed this decision arguing that the Tribunal did not abide with the requirements of article 79 of the Consumer Affairs Act as consumer did not notify the trader of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from when she became aware of the said shortcomings. Furthermore the Tribunal acted contrary to article 76 of the said Act, when it decided to grant the remedy of rescission of contract when the shortcomings were minor and insignificant.
The Court noted that plaintiff at the moment of the delivery and assembly of the kitchen furniture had made various complaints about shortcomings and imperfections such as wrong colours and fittings. Defendant company accepted that these existed and promised to rectify them, but failed to do so. Defendant company had ample time to rectify matters and offered to replace part of the kitchen furniture, however the samples shown to plaintiff were not acceptable to her and she opted instead for a reduction in the price. The reduction in price offered to her was not acceptable to her, hence plaintiff decided to make her claim.
The Court determined that the shortcomings could not be considered as being minor or insignificant since the material imperfections and other shortcomings were such as to impact negatively on the use and value of the product in a significant manner. In such instances the law gives the buyer the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price of the product purchased. In such circumstances it was incorrect for defendant company to promise to rectify matters, let time pass and not undertake to make the required rectifications. In such circumstance the Court in deciding in favour of plaintiff, held that plaintiff could not be precluded from seeking either the rescission of the contract or a reduction of the price of the product bought.
Seduta tat-12 ta' Dicembru, 2007
Appell Civili Numru. 10/2007
Erminia Parfitt
Fl-20 ta’ Marzu, 2007, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal- Konsumaturi ppronunzja s-segwenti sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:-
Wara li ha konjizzjoni ta’ l-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentat fid-29 ta’ Awissu 2005 fejn irrikorrenti talbet refund ta’ tliet mija u sittin Lira Maltin (Lm360) illi kienu thallsu fuq kcina illi apparti li kienet konsenjata zmien wara d-data stipulata kellha wkoll diversi nuqqasijiet.
L-intimat ipprezenta risposta ghal din it-talba kif ukoll ghamel kontro-talba u attenda ghas-seduta.
Ir-rikorrenti ppezentat risposta ghall-kontro talba.
Illi wara li sema’ x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li hija l-istess rikorrenti, u wara li sema’ x-xhieda ta’ l-intimat li huwa rapprezentant tad-ditta intimata, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha talkaz, kif ukoll ezamina r-ritratti esebiti;
1. Ir-Rikorrenti xtrat ghamara tal-kamra ta’ l-ikel minghand id-ditta intimata li minbarra li waslet hafna wara z-zmien miftiehem kellha wkoll diversi nuqqasijiet.
L-intimat ammetta li l-ghamara kienet waslet tard u li kellha certu nuqqasijiet u ta’ dan offra kumpens.
It-Tribunal jinnota illi d-ditta intimata kellha diversi opportunitajiet sabiex tirrettifika l-pozizzjoni taghha kif ukoll illi ma attendietx ghall-ahhar zewg seduti minkejja li kienet notifikata bid-data u l-hin tassmigh.
It-Tribunal jilqa’ t-talba tar-rikorrenti u jordna lillintimat ihallas is-somma ta’ Lm360 bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess intimat b’ dan illi l-ghamara tal-kcina ssir proprjeta` ta’ l-intimat wara li jsir il-hlas.”
Fil-konfront ta’ din is-sentenza s-socjeta` intimata tissolleva dawn l-aggravji:-
(1) It-Tribunal ma ghamelx stharrig probatorju logiku u naqas milli jsegwi d-dettami ta’ l-Artikolu 79 tal- Kapitolu 378;
(2) It-Tribunal illedilha l-principju ta’ gustizzja naturali b’ mod gravi meta ma okkupax ruhu milleccezzjonijiet kollha taghha, senjatament l-ewwel eccezzjoni sottomessa;
(3) Ugwalment, it-Tribunal ivvjola l-istess principju meta adotta r-rimedju drastiku tar-rexxissjoni tal-vendita kkuntrattata, meta dan ma kellux ikun hekk il-kaz ghallinadempjenzi minuri u insinjifikanti, skond l-Artikolu 76 (2) tal-Kapitolu imsemmi;
(4) It-Tribunal, f’ kull kaz, naqas li jipprovdi dwar is-sufan li, flimkien mal-kcina, kien jifforma parti mill-bejgh;
(5) Tezisti inkongruwenza procedurali stante li lkundanna saret di fronte ghall-“intimat" u mhux ukoll kontra “s-socjeta` intimata”;
Qabel kull konsiderazzjoni ohra din il-Qorti trid taghmel ilprecizazzjonijiet
li gejjin:-
(1) Kull kaz irid jigi skrutinat fuq il-fattezzi partikulari tieghu. Li jfisser ukoll illi meta l-principji taddritt, applikabbli f’ kazijiet ohra, ma jghoddux ghallfattispeci tal-kaz ezaminat dawn ma ghandhomx jircievu applikabilita` bhal fil-kazijiet l-ohra. Dan qed jigi rilevat in kwantu s-socjeta` appellanti tirreferi, b’ sostenn ghallargoment taghha, ghal certa gurisprudenza ta’ din l-istess Qorti meta l-fatti fihom huma distinti minn dawk verifikati fil-kaz prezenti;
(2) Hu prekluz, u anzi mhux lecitu, li din il-Qorti ta’ revizjoni tokkupa ruhha minn kwestjonijiet, taht forma ta’ aggravji, li ma jkunux ifformaw parti mill-kontestazzjoni quddiem l-ewwel tribunal. Fuq dan il-principju tezisti gurisprudenza ben konkordi. Ara, b’ ezemplari, “George Abela -vs- Joseph Cortis nomine”, Appell Superjuri, 27 ta’ Lulju 2007;
(3) Huwa veru li fil-maggjor parti tad-decizjonijiet tieghu t-Tribunal specjali adit jadopera l-istess modulu ciklostilat fir-redazzjoni taghhom, b’ mod li dan jinducih ghal certi zbalji li jistghu b’ aktar attenzjoni jigu evitati. B’ danakollu, anke jekk din il-Qorti drabi ohra esprimiet ruhha b’ dizfavur ghal dan il-metodu, dan ma jgibx ghaddenunzja ta’ inkongruwenza procedurali u sostanzjali senjalata mis-socjeta` appellanti, ladarba, kif inhu l-kaz hawnhekk, l-uniku “intimata” fil-kontradittorju tat-talba attrici ma kienetx hlief l-istess socjeta` intimata sokkombenti fil-gudizzju; Fermi dawn l-osservazzjonijiet, ghar-rizoluzzjoni ta’ lilmenti komplessivi sottoposti lil Qorti mis-socjeta` appellanti huwa xieraq li jinzammu prezenti, u filperspettiva tal-perkors kronologiku taghhom, il-fatti infraskritti:-
(1) Jekk wiehed joqghod ghall-versjoni ta’ lappellata, kif deskritta b’ certu dettal fid-dikjarazzjoni akkompanjanti l-avviz promotur taghha tal-kawza, fl-istess mument tal-konsenja u mmuntar tal-kcina komprata hi avvanzat diversi lanjanzi dwar imperfezzjonijiet u difetti materjali fiha. Tali kienu jirrigwardaw dawk l-attributi filhaga li jolqtu l-utilabilita`, il-funzjoni jew il-pregju. Ad ezempju, mizurazzjonijiet u kuluri hziena. In generali, ilmetodu tal-produzzjoni tal-kcina. Is-socjeta` appellanti filwaqt li rrikonoxxiet l-ezistenza taghhom ippromettiet li tirrettifikahom, pero` xorta wahda baqghet inadempjenti. Zmien wara kienet anke issuggeriet ir-rimpjazzament ta’ whud mill-komponenti tal-kcina izda l-kampjun muri lillappellata ma kienx accettabbli minnha u optat li titlob riduzzjoni fil-prezz. Dak offert lilha bhala tnaqqis ukoll ma sabx l-adezjoni taghha u konsegwentement ghaddiet biex tirrisolvi l-ftehim u titlob ir-rimbors tas-somma li hallset bhala akkont;
(2) Skond il-linja difensjonali taghha s-socjeta` appellanti ppretendiet li gjaladarba l-appellata accettat ilkonsenja u zammet ghandha l-kcina, u una volta wkoll, accettat li jsiru xoghlijiet rimedjali, hi giet li rrinunzjat gharrizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim;
(3) Ghal kompletar tal-kwadru jirrizulta wkoll illi filmori tal-gudizzju quddiem it-Tribunal kien hemm tentattivi ta’ soluzzjoni bonarja ghall-vertenza, kif manifest milliskambju ta’ e-mails minn fol. 25 sa fol. 36 pero` dawn ma taw ebda rizultat posittiv;
Fuq il-valutazzjoni taghha ta’ dawn il-fatti kif johorgu millatti tal-kawza hi l-fehma ta’ din il-Qorti illi, kuntrarjament ghal dak asserit mis-socjeta` appellanti, l-inadempjenzi filkcina ma jistghux jitqiesu ta’ portata minuri jew insinjifikanti. L-imperfezzjonijiet materjali fil-haga u dawk tan-nuqqasijiet l-ohra, accertati u rikonoxxuti, huma tali li fil-hsieb konsiderat tal-Qorti, jincidu kemm fuq l-uzu kif ukoll fuq il-valur tal-haga, u dan b’ mod apprezzabbli, avut anke rigward ghall-funzjoni presunta mill-kontrattazzjoni. Jidher apparentement li jezistu mankanzi kemm fit-tip ta’ kwalita kif ukoll fil-kulur ta’ l-oggett. Mhux lanqas eskluz illi l insorgenza ta’ dawn l-imperfezzjonijiet u mankanzi ghandhom rapport mal-konsenja nnifisha;
Ghal dawn, il-ligi gustament toffri t-tutela misthoqqa lixxerrej. Dan sew fil-kaz ta’ difetti fil-haga jew ta’ assenza ta’ certa kwalita promessa. Tutela din li a xelta talkompratur tiehu l-forma tar-rizoluzzjoni tal-vendita jew tarriduzzjoni fil-prezz. Fuq is-sekwela tal-fatti maghrufa hu ferm difficli ghal din il-Qorti li taccetta l-proposizzjoni tarrinunzja ghar-rimedju esperit mill-appellata. Ma thossx li hu sewwa illi fic-cirkostanzi maghrufa s-socjeta` appellanti twieghed li taghmel bosta affarijiet biex tirrimedja ghallinadempjenzi taghha stess, thalli z-zmien ghaddej
inutilment bla ma taghmel xejn, ma taghmelx lanqas ixxoghlijiet 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 fl-ewwel lok ghandu dejjem jigi mfakkar bhala punt ta’ ligi illi r-rinunzji “di stretto diritto” jridu jirrizultaw minn fatti univoci li minnhom ma tista’ tingibed ebda kongettura ohra hlief il-propozitu evidenti tarrinunzja. (Ara Kollez. Vol. XXXIV P II p 646.) Fit-tieni lok, ankorke seta’ kien hemm f’ dan is-sens certa volonta manifesta da parti ta’ l-appellata ghal xoghlijiet rimedjali, jekk din l-istess volonta ma gietx percepita kif mistenni mill-kontroparti, u dan ma ghaddiex ghall-ezekuzzjoni ta’ dik l-istess volonta espressa skond l-ghazla primarja maghmula mill-appellata, tali volonta ma kellhiex, anke skond ir-rikjami elemantari tal-gustizzja, titqies ta’ natura tali li tekwivali ghal xi stat ta’ rinunzja permanenti jew ta’ abdikazzjoni ta’ ghazliet ohra, anke fejn bhal f’ dan il-kaz, ir-rispons mill-kontroparti jkun wiehed indifferenti jew negattiv. Jekk dan jigi accettat ikun ifisser, inikwita u pregudizzju serju ghall appellata ghax din ikollha nolens volens tissokkombi ghall-qaghda irresponsabbli talkondotta tat-terz li mieghu kkuntrattat, u dan ghal din il- Qorti mhux accettabbli u lanqas ammissibbli;
Minn dan kollu jikkonsegwi, fl-opinjoni tal-Qorti, illi lappellata, fil-fattispeci ma kienetx prekluza milli tghaddi biex titlob ir-rizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim u r-rimbors tal-prezz. Dejjem fuq il-konsiderazzjoni u l-valutazzjoni tal-fatti hi lfehma tal-Qorti illi t-Tribunal ma ghamelx hazin li laqa’ rrikjesta ta’ l-appellata u applika l provvediment restitutorju. Naturalment, hemm qbil mas-socjeta` appellanti illi rrizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim kellha tinkorpora wkoll is-sufan in kwantu, kif inhu accettat anke mill-appellata, dan l-oggett kien jifforma, flimkien mal-kcina, parti integrali millkontrattazzjoni.
Ghal dawn il-motivi din il-Qorti qed tiddeciedi billi tichad lappell u tikkonferma s-sentenza appellata, b’ dan illi oltre l-ghamara tal-kcina ghandu jkun restitwit ukoll is-sufan lissocjeta` appellanti, avverat ir-rimbors lill-appellata tassomma ta’ tliet mija u sittin lira (Lm360), ghal liema ssentenza tat-Tribunal tirreferi. L-ispejjez ta’ din ilprocedura jitbatew mis-socjeta` appellanti.