Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=5962&idCountry=19&plang=en
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 06:19:33+00:00
Document Index: 823877

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

Doris Giordimania VsOxford Mobbli Limited
Plaintiff bought a bedroom furniture from defendant company. After a short while defects emerged. Despite two attempts by defendant company to rectify matters the resultant defects remained. Plaintiff subsequently filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal. Though duly notified with the claim and the date of hearing, defendant company failed to attend for the Tribunal sitting. The Tribunal upheld the claims made by plaintiff and awarded the sum of one thousand fifty Maltese liri (Lm1050) being the sum plaintiff paid when she bought the said furniture. The Tribunal also ordered that the furniture is returned to defendant company once it pays the sums awarded to plaintiff.
Defendant company filed an appeal from the Tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal, claiming that the Tribunal acted in breach of the principles of natural justice and equity. Defendant company argued that whilst it did fail to attend for the sitting, the Tribunal could not ignore its written pleading whereby it had raised the plea of prescription. Moreover defendant company submitted that the Tribunal acted contrary to substantive justice when it ignored the fact that plaintiff had for some years kept and used the furniture. Defendant company contended that given such circumstances plaintiff was not entitled to ask for replacement of the said furniture or for the rescission of the contract of purchase once plaintiff had failed to act in good time when she noticed that the furniture was not of the quality agreed to.
The Court of Appeal said that the Tribunal had ignored the plea of prescription raised by defendant company. This was in breach of article 21(1) of the Consumer Affairs Act, which requires the Tribunal to decide any issues relating to prescription which may be raised before that Tribunal. The Court therefore annulled the decision of Tribunal.
The Court however on the basis of article 22(2) of the Consumer Affairs Act, choose to hear the case itself given that under that article, the Court of Appeal in annulling a Tribunal decision, is empowered to hear and determine the case itself. The Court first proceeded to consider the plea of prescription. In dismissing this plea the Court said that defendant company failed to produce evidence as to the period from when the period prescription was supposed to have commenced. The Court referred to article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which provides that in cases where there is lack of conformity with the sample or with promised quality of the product being purchased, the period of prescription is considered to be suspended for the duration of the period during which negotiations are in course between the consumer and the trader. The Court noted that defendant company in these circumstances remained passive and did not submit any evidence to counter plaintiff’s contentions that the repairs undertaken did not rectify matters and that therefore plaintiff in such circumstances had every right on the basis of article 76 of the Consumer Affairs Act to seek the rescission of the contract and request a full refund of the sum paid for the said furniture. The Court however in its decision decided to deduct two hundred Maltese liri from the original sum claimed given that plaintiff had for time made use of the said furniture ordering that out of the total amount of one thousand and fifty Maltese liri, the amount of eight hundred and fifty Maltese liri be paid to plaintiff.
Seduta tat-28 ta' Marzu, 2008
Appell Civili Numru. 13/2007
Doris Giordimaina
Oxford Mobbli Ltd
Fl-10 ta’ Mejju, 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’ Jannar 2007 fejn irrikorrenti talbet danni ta’ elf u hamsin Liri Maltin (Lm1050) rapprezentanti prezz ta’ kamra tas-sodda illi zviluppawlha diversi hsarat.
Illi wara li sema’ x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li hija l-istess rikorrenti, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha tal-kaz;
Ir-rikorrenti xtrat kamra tas-sodda fit-28 ta’ Mejju 2005 minghand id-ditta intimata ghall-prezz ta’ elf u hamsin liri Maltin (Lm1050) u wara ftit taz-zmien zviluppaw hsarat illi minkejja li saru zewg tentattivi mid-ditta intimata sabiex issewwi dawn il-hsarat, din il-kamra tas-sodda baqghet bil-hsara.
L-intimat baghat risposta ghal din it-talba izda ma attendiex ghas-seduta minkejja li kien notifikat kemm bl-avviz tat-talba kif ukoll bid-data u l-hin tassmiegh.
It-Tribunal jinnota illi l-intimat ma attendiex ghasseduta u jikkonsidra illi l-verzjoni tar-rikorrenti hija veritjera stante illi l-intimat ma ssostanzja xejn minn
dak illi kiteb fir-risposta tieghu u t-Tribunal huwa konvint mill-verzjoni tar-rikorrent.
It-Tribunal jilqa’ t-talba tar-rikorrenti u jordna lillintimat ihallas is-somma ta’ elf u hamsin liri Maltin (Lm1050) bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess intimat b’ dan illi l-kamra tas-sodda ssir proprjeta` ta’ l-intimat meta jkun sar il-hlas.”
L-appell tas-socjeta` konvenuta di fronte ghal din issentenza hu hekk koncepit. Veru li hi naqset li tidher ghas-smiegh tal-kawza pero` it-Tribunal lanqas seta’ jinjora r-risposta taghha, senjatament l-eccezzjoni talpreskrizzjoni minnha opposta ai termini ta’ l-Artikolu 1431 (1) fil-Kapitolu 12 (recte, 16). Dan igib, dejjem skond listess socjeta` konvenuta, illi t-Tribunal mar kontra ddettami tal-gustizzja naturali u ta’ l-ekwita` skond il-ligi. Tikkontendi, inoltre, illi s-sentenza lanqas ma tirrifletti lKopja gustizzja sostantiva in kwantu t-Tribunal skarta wkoll il-fatt illi l-attrici zammet l-ghamara ghandha ghal snin shah u ghamlet uzu minnha. Hi ma tistax, konsegwentement, wara dan iz-zmien tippretendi r-rimpjazzament talghamara jew ir-rexxissjoni ghax messha agixxiet tempestivament malli kkonstatat li s-sett tal-ghamara ma kienx tal-kwalita` pattwita;
Huwa apparentement wisq evidenti mill-atti processwali illi din il-kawza ma gietx ikkultivata kif imiss. Dan qed jigi rilevat in kwantu mhux car jekk il-fatti jipprospettawx kuntratt ta’ kompravendita jew, invece, dak ta’ locatio operis. Fl-avviz promotur taghha l-attrici tirreferi ghal xiri minnha tas-sett tal-kamra tas-sodda, u fuq dan il-binarju hi wkoll is-sentenza appellata. Ghal kuntrarju, s-socjeta` appellanti issostni fir-risposta taghha illi x-xoghol sar skond l-arti u s-sengha u tali kwalita` jaghmel ilkontrattazzjoni tirrientra fl-ambitu ta’ l-appalt jew locatio operis. Fl-istess nifs, pero`, din l-istess socjeta` topponi ghat-talba attrici l-preskrizzjoni applikabbli taht l-istitut talbejgh ghall-vizzju redibitorju fil-haga. Biex aktar tizdied ilkonfuzjoni issa fil-korp tar-rikors ta’ l-appell taccenna ghall-mankanza tal-kwalita` pattwita fil-haga venduta, u, kif saput, it-teorija relattiva ghal din il-kwalita` u dik talvizzju redibitorju mhux l-istess haga. Ara “Carmelo Xuereb -vs- Nazzareno Azzopardi”, Appell Kummercjali, 21 ta’ Gunju, 1943. Huwa induttiv minn dan kollu, anke ghar-raguni illi s-socjeta` konvenuta baqghet ma offrietx ilprovi taghha fir-rigward ghall-iskop ta’ diskussjoni, illi rrelazzjoni kontrattwali insorta x’ aktarx hi relatata ma’ kompravendita u, allura, regolata bid-disposizzjonijiet relattivi ghal dan l-istatut;
Dan ipprecizat, huwa kjarament ovvju wkoll illi t-Tribunal injora ghal kollox fis-sentenza tieghu l-eccezzjoni talpreskrizzjoni opposta. Dan bi ksur tal-proviso ghall- Artikolu 21 (1) tal-Kapitolu 378 li jistipula li “kull kwistjoni li jista’ jkun hemm dwar il-preskrizzjoni ghandha tinqata’ skond il-ligi”. Hu provvdut mill-Artikolu 730 tal-Kodici ta' Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Civili illi l-eccezzjoni talKopja
preskrizzjoni ghandha tigi deciza b’ kap separat, qabel, jew flimkien mas-sentenza fuq il-mertu. “Jekk din ir-regola ma tigix osservata l-uniku rimedju huwa dak li s-sentenza appellata tigi annullata minhabba difett ta’ forma, u l-atti
jigu mibghutin lura lill-ewwel Qorti.” (“Raphael Micallef - vs- Anthony Agius”, Appell, 12 ta’ Mejju, 1997). F’ dawn ic-cirkustanzi l-Qorti ma tistax hlief tiddikjara nulla ssentenza hawn appellata. Mhux il-kaz, pero`, li l-Qorti tibghat lura l-atti lit-Tribunal u dan in vista ta’ dak li jinghad fl-ahhar parti tas-subinciz (2) ta’ l-Artikolu 22 ta’ l-Att XXVIII ta’ l-1994 li jrid li meta l-Qorti thassar is-sentenza ghandha tiddefinixxi l-materja hi stess. Dan, skond iddispost ta’ l-Artikolu 21 fuq imsemmi;
Hu statwit fl-Artikolu 1431 tal-Kodici Civili illi l-azzjoni redibitorja jew dik stimatorja taqa’ bil-preskrizzjoni, fil-kaz ta’ mobbli, bl-eghluq ta’ sitt xhur minn dak in-nhar talkunsinna tal-haga mibjugha. Dejjem jekk din ilpreskrizzjoni kienet dik idoneja ghall-fattispeci u lkwestjoni verament kienet taggira fuq id-difett redibitorju, kien jaggrava fuq is-socjeta` appellanti illi tipprova, filminimu, illi z-zmien fuq imsemmi ta’ sitt xhur iddekorra. Din hi prova ferm importanti ghaliex fil-kaz ta’ din ix-xorta ta’ azzjoni l-ligi ma torbotx it-trapass taz-zmien “minn dakinhar li din l-azzjoni tista’ tigi ezercitata” (Artikolu 2137, Kodici Civili) izda taghmel dan id-dekors “minn dakinhar li seta’ jkun li hu (ix-xerrej) jikxef dak id-difett” (subinciz 2 ta’ l-artikolu 1431). Ara “Joseph Zerafa et -vs- Saviour Delia et”, Appell, 4 ta’ Gunju, 1997 u, b’ aktar approfondiment, “Carmelo Dimech -vs- Francis Xuereb et”, Appell, 15 ta’ Dicembru, 1997);
F’ dan il-kaz minn certu taghrif li jirrizulta mill-istess att promotur tat-talba jirrizulta li saru xoghlijiet riparatrici missocjeta` appellanti fuq is-sett tal-ghamara pero` zzmenijiet ta’ meta dawn saru mhux maghruf. Jezisti, imbaghad, kuntrast gurisprudenzjali jekk it-terminu ghaddekorriment ta’ l-azzjoni huwiex wiehed preskrittiv jew dekadenzjali, ghax kif jinsab ritenut “meta hemm it-test talligi stess li jiddikjara esplicitament illi terminu hu ta’ preskrizzjoni, il-kwistjoni tad-distinzjoni (bejn preskrizzjoni u dekadenza) anqas biss tqum …. L-Artikolu 1481, Kodici Civili (illum Artikolu 1431) espressament isemmi preskrizzjoni tant fil-korp tieghu kemm fit-titolu marginali.” (“Carmelo Caruana et nomine -vs- Salvatore Farrugia”, Appell Civili, 1 ta’ Awissu, 1966). Hu ta’ liema speci hu zzmien, huwa evidenti bosta illi s-socjeta` appellanti, ammess li l-azzjoni hi wahda redibitorja, irrikonoxxiet ilvizzju fl-oggett vendut tant li ghaddiet biex taghmel irriparazzjonijiet okkorrenti. Ankorke mhux maghruf jekk dan ir-rikonoxximent u ezekuzzjoni tax-xoghlijiet ta’ tiswija sarux fiz-zmien utli tas-sitt xhur li ssemmi l-ligi, u ankorke dan it-terminu ghandu jitqies wiehed ta’ dekadenza, dik ilkonfessjoni tas-socjeta` appellanti ta’ l-ezistenza u preezistenza tal-vizzju kienet tillegittima d-dritt ta’ l-azzjoni. Ara “Joseph Tanti Palmier -vs- Joseph Runza Mifsud nomine” Qorti tal-Kummerc, 25 ta’ Novembru 1960;
Dan premess, lanqas ma jidher li dik il-preskrizzjoni a norma ta’ l-Artikolu 1431 tista’ titqies ammissibbli, gjaldarba, kif anke huwa rikonoxxut mill-istess socjeta`
appellanti, hawnhekk non si tratta ta’ vizzju redibitorju imma ta’ ipotesi ta’ oggett mibjugh difformi mill-kampjun. L-istess invoice esebita a fol. 24 tirreferi ghas-sample li presumibilment kien intwera lill-appellata. F’ dan il-kaz ilpreskrizzjoni hi xort’ ohra minn dik traccjata fl-Artikolu 1431 izda la dik il-preskrizzjoni l-ohra skond l-Artikolu 1407 (1), Kapitolu 16, ma gietx sollevata, il-Qorti, lanqas kieku trid, ma tista’ ex officio, taghti effett ghallpreskrizzjoni jekk din ma tigix eccepita mill-parti interessata. Ara Artikolu 2111, Kodici Civili. Ghal kull bwon fini hu dejjem mahsub f’ dan il-kuntest illi skond irrieda tal-legislatur taht il-ligi specjali l-perijodu ta’ preskrizzjoni, ghal kaz ta’ nuqqas ta’ konformita` malkampjun jew mal-kwalita` mweghda, ghandu jitqies sospiz sakemm idumu ghaddejjin in-negozjati bejn ilkummercjant u l-konsumatur bil-ghan li jintlahaq ftehim amikevoli. A propozitu, l-Artikolu 78 ta’ l-Att. Din ilqaghda hi sew distinta minn dik generali taht il-ligi komuni, fejn, skond gurisprudenza konkordi, l-istess trattattivi ma jissospendux iz-zmien (ad eccezzjoni, ta’ azzjoni ghadKopja danni, ex-Artikolu 2125 (d), Kodici Civili), lanqas ghal skop ta’ soluzzjoni bonarja tal-kwestjoni. Ara, ad ezempju, “Emmanuele Camilleri nomine -vs- Anthony Calascione nomine”, Qorti tal-Kummerc, 29 ta’ Ottubru, 1954, u “Carmelo Attard et nomine -vs- Domenic Micallef et nomine”, Appell, 19 ta’ Novembru, 2001;
Taht dawn ic-cirkustanzi, anke ghaliex is-socjeta` appellanti baqghet passiva u ma ressqet ebda provi filmertu biex verament tikkuntrasta dak pretiz mill appellata, una volta, kif irrizulta, ir-rimedju tat-tiswijiet ma gab ebda soljev lill appellata din kellha kull dritt li titlob ir-rexxissjoni tal-ftehim u r-rimbors tal-prezz li hallset ghall-oggetti mixtrija. Ara f’ dan is-sens l-Artikolu 76 ta’ l-Att imsemmi. B’ danakollu, gjaladarba s-sett ilu mizmum mill-appellata, u, presumibilment, uzat ukoll minnha ghal xi zmien, hi sew gustizzja sostanzjali, sew dritt ekwitattiv illi r-rifuzjoni lura tal-prezz ghandu jonqos mill-anqas b’ mitejn lira (Lm200).
Ghal dawn il-motivi l-Qorti qed tiddeciedi billi fl-ewwel lok tannulla s-sentenza appellata in kwantu din naqset milli tokkupa ruhha, u tiddeciedi wkoll, l-eccezzjoni talpreskrizzjoni opposta a tenur ta’ l-Artikolu 1431 (1) tal- Kodici Civili. Fil-mertu, tichad din l-istess preskrizzjoni billi tqisha mhux applikabbli ghall-fattispeci u konsegwentement tghaddi biex tilqa’ t-talba ta’ l-appellata. Tikkundanna lis-socjeta` appellanti biex tirrifondi lura lillappellata s-somma ta’ tmien mija u hamsin Lira Maltin (Lm850), ekwivalenti fil-munita korrenti ghal elf disa’ mija disgha u sebghin euro u sebgha u disghin centezmu (€1979.97) b’ dan illi, kontemporanjament ma’ dan il-hlas, l-appellata ghandha tikkonsenja lura lis-socjeta` appellanti s-sett tal-ghamara tas-sodda komprata. Fic-cirkostanzi, lispejjez ta’ din il-procedura jibqghu bla taxxa bejn ilpartijiet.