Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=5961&idCountry=19&plang=en&action=maximize&print=print
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 09:29:54+00:00
Document Index: 840760

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

Antoinette Abela vsInternational Sales Direct
Plaintiff bought from the defendant company a steamer which after some time proved to be defective. Defendant contested the claim lodged before the Consumer Claims Tribunal but failed to attend for the Tribunal sitting. Defendant in its appeal argued that the Tribunal acted contrary to the principles of natural justice by failing to give it a fair hearing, pleading also that the Tribunal failed to adequately ensure conformity with the requirements of article 79 of the Consumer Affairs Act since plaintiff did not act immediately but kept the defective product for two whole years. Defendant company further contended that the Tribunal was wrong in granting plaintiff the remedy of rescission of the contract in accordance with article 76(2) of the Consumer Affairs Act as the circumstances of the case did not justify recourse to such a remedy.
In dismissing the plea that the Tribunal acted contrary to the principles of natural justice, the Court said that from the Tribunal records it was evident that both parties had adequate opportunity to present their case, observing that if defendant company had valid grounds for not attending it should at least have made a written request to the Tribunal giving its reasons therefore, something which defendant failed to do.
The Court in relation to the pleas raised with regard to article 76 of the Consumer Affairs Act which relates to the remedy of rescission of contract granted by the Tribunal to plaintiff, noted that this article must be read in conjunction with articles 74 and 75 of the Act. According to these provisions it is up to the consumer to decide which remedy to ask for, whereby the consumer may ask either for the repair of the product or its replacement, or where the defect is significant or major for a reduction in the price paid or for a rescission of the contract and full refund. In this case defendant company failed to show that the non-conformity was insignificant or minor. The Court said that plaintiff acted promptly when she discovered the defects in the product and communicated with defendant company in order to rectify the said defects. If the initial remedies provided by defendant company proved to be inadequate, plaintiff could not then confronted with the plea that she had consequently lost the right to seek redress because she kept the defective product. The Court in the circumstances confirmed the decision of the Tribunal.
Pagna 1 minn 6
Seduta tat-28 ta' Jannar, 2008
Appell Civili Numru. 12/2007
International Sales Direct
Fis-17 ta’ April, 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 fit-23 ta’ Ottubru 2006 fejn irrikorrenti talbet danni ta’ erba’ mija u hamsin Liri Maltin (Lm450) rapprezentanti prezz ta’ ‘steamer’ illi matul iz-zmien tal-garanzija kellu diversi hsarat.
Ir-rikorrenti xtrat steamer minghand id-ditta intimata illi wara ftit zmien beda jinqala l-‘pipe’ kif ukoll bdew isaddu l-viti u li ghalkemm hadithom ghand id-ditta
intimata dawn ma rrangawiex.
L-intimat baghat risposta ghal din it-talba izda ma attendiex ghas-seduta minkejja li kien notifikat biddata u l-hin tas-smiegh.
It-Tribunal jinnota illi fir-risposta tieghu l-intimatammetta illi l-‘pipe’ rabtuh b’ cingaminflok bidluh u lidan sar sabiex ir-rikorrenti ma jkollhiex ghalfejn tixtri
wiehed gdid u li huma qatt ma qalu lir-rikorrenti illi lvitihuma stainless steel minkejja illi qalulha illi lboiler huwa stainless steel.
It-Tribunal jinnota illi ga la darba l-intimat kein infurmat illi l-boiler huwa ‘stainless steel’, bl-istess irragunar jew ir-rikorrenti kellu jassumi illi l-viti kienu wkoll ‘stainless steel’ kif ukoll illi mkien ma jirrizulta illi r-rikorrenti kienet offruta il-bdil tal-‘pipe’.
It-Tribunal wara li sema’ l-verzjoni tar-rikorrenti jaccetta illi hija veritiera ghal fatt illi qatt ma kienet offruta l-bdil tal-‘pipe’ u wkoll illi qatt ma giet informata li l-viti ma ‘stainless steel’ bhal ‘boiler’ u jordna lill-intimat ihallas lir-rikorrenti s-somma ta’ erba mija u hamsin lira Maltin (Lm450) bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess intimat b’ dan illi l-isteamer issir proprjeta` ta’ l-intimat wara li jkun sar il-hlas.”
Fil-konfront ta’ din is-sentenza d-ditta intimata tilmenta blaggravju generali illi t-Tribunal mar kontra d-dettami talKopja gustizzja naturali audi alteram partem. Fl-ispecifiku, dan lilment taghha tissuddividih kif gej:-
(1) It-Tribunal naqas milli jaghtiha l-opportunita` li tipprezenta l-kaz u li tiddefendih kif jixraq. Hi taccetta li ebda rapprezentant taghha ma attenda ghall-ewwel u lahhar seduta, b’ dana li fl-istess waqt tissottometti b’ raguni illi dik l-assenza taghha fil-proceduri kienet dovuta ghal-luttu fil-familja tad-dirigenti;
(2) Il-motivazzjoni tas-sentenza tippekka minn konfuzjoni fir-ragonament taghha. Dan ghaliex, skond idditta appellanti, mentri t-Tribunal donnu accetta lasserzjoni
taghha illi l-pipe ta’ l-isteamer vendut minnha ssewwa u ma nbidelx, u wkoll li l-appellata qatt ma giet imweghda li l-viti kellhom ikun ta’ l-istainless steel, huwa
mbaghad ghadda biex jirrexxindi l-bejgh;
(3) It-Tribunal naqas milli jistharreg jekk gewx sodisfatti r-rekwiziti ta’ l-Artikolu 79 tal-Kapitolu 378;
(4) L-appellata ma agixxietx immedjatament u zammet ghandha l-oggett ghal sentejn shah;
(5) It-Tribunal ma kellux jadotta r-rimedju tarrexxissjoni in vista ta’ dak li jinghad fl-Artikolu 76 (2) tal- Kapitolu imsemmi;
Din il-Qorti tistqarr illi ma taqbel assolutament xejn ma’ lespressjoni
ta’ fehma tad-ditta appellanti kontenuta flewwel motiv ta’ aggravju. Mill-verifika ta’ l-atti processwali quddiem it-Tribunal jirrizulta illi z-zewg partijiet in kawza
tqeghdu fil-posizzjoni li jippartecipaw fiha u li jgibu ‘l quddiem l-assunti rispettivi ghas-sostenn tad-difizi taghhom. Ara l-verbali tas-seduti tat-23 ta’ Jannar 2007
(fol. 14) u ta’ l-1 ta’ Marzu 2007 (fol. 13). Ciononostante, id-ditta appellanti baqghet assenti minn dawn is-seduti. F’ qaghda bhal din, il-Qorti gja kellha, recentement hafna, okkazjoni tirrileva illi “hi wkoll zbaljata s-sottomissjoni ta’ lappellanti illi l-principju audi alteram partem kien wiehed li jittraxxendi r-regoli ta’ procedura mahsuba biex jorganizza l-process gudizzjarji u li l-Qorti u l-partijiet huma tenuti li josservaw” (“Frances Mercieca -vs- Future Focus Ltd”, 17 ta’ Ottubru 2007). Dan, maggorment, imbaghad, filkaz ta’ proceduri quddiem it-Tribunal specjali adit in vista ta’ dak mahsub fl-Artikolu 23 (1) u (2) tal-Kapitolu 378;
Jekk hu veru mbaghad illi d-ditta appellanti kellha raguni mpellenti u serja biex ma tattendix ghal fatt ta’ luttu filfamilja tad-dirigenti, l-anqas li setghet taghmel kien li tipprezenta rikors lit-Tribunal, jew anke semplici nota, li hi ma setghetx tattendi ghal dik ir-raguni. La dan ma ghamlitux ma tistax issa tippretendi li tista’ tlum lill-Arbitru li ssokta ‘l quddiem bl-andament tal-kawza u ghadda ghad-decizjoni, jew li ticcensurah li vvjolalha l-principju talkontradittorju u ma tahiex l-opportunita` tad-djalettika processwali;
Fuq it-tieni motiv ta’ aggravju din il-Qorti ma tarax li tista’ takkolji d-deduzzjoni tad-ditta appellanti ta’ xi vizzju logiku fil-motivazzjoni. Anke jekk din tinsab redatta b’ mod skematiku minnha hu sew dedott l-iter tal-hsieb persegwit mit-Tribunal ghar-raggungiment tar-ratio decidendi. Huwa ddetermina fuq l-elementi tal-provi forniti mill-appellata, u dik tar-risposta tad-ditta appellanti, illi l-pipe ta’ l-isteamer mixtri ma kienx idoneju ghall-uzu funzjonali tieghu, li ddifett insit fih gie sempliciment riparat bl-irbit permezz ta’ cinga minflok ma l-pipe innifsu gie sostitwit, u li, inoltre, filkaz tal-viti, li rrizultaw korrosivi, l-appellata qatt ma kienet informata illi dawn, bhala komponenti tal-boiler, ma kienux ukoll bhalu ta’ l-istainless steel. Fil-kumpless, jidher li hu dan li kien fil-forma mentis ta’ l-Arbitru, anke jekk espress bi kliem anqas elaborati, u li nducih jiddeciedi, kif effettivament iddecieda;
Il-Qorti jidhirlha li ghandha tiddisponi mill-ahhar tliet motivi
ta’ aggravju bil-mod infraskritt:-
(1) Fl-ewwel lok qed jigi registrat illi minn imkien mir-risposta tad-ditta appellanti ma jinsab dedott ghallKopja ezami u decizjoni tat-Tribunal dwarhom illi kien hemm ksur ta’ l-Artikolu 79 u non-konformita ma’ l-Artikolu 76 (2) ta’ l-Att XXVIII ta’ l-1994, u l-ilment dwarhom qed jitqajjem biss issa, u ghall-ewwel darba, fl-istadju inoltrat ta’ lappell. Dan igib illi, strettament, din il-Qorti ma ghandhiex tokkupa ruhha minn dawn l-istess motivi ta’ aggravju la qatt ma fformaw kontroversja quddiem it-Tribunal;
(2) Ankorke, il-Qorti kellha tikkonsidrahom jibda biex jigi rilevat illi ghalkemm ma jirrizultax mill-atti li lappellata segwiet il-formalita` tan-notifika dettata mill- Artikolu 79, fir-realta l-komunikazzjoni lid-ditta appellanti ghal ksib tar-rimedju aspettat mill-appellata twasslet tempestivament lilha tant li l-istess ditta appellanti applikat
ruhha biex tirricerka r-rimedju li hi dehrilha opportun. Rimedju dan, li ma instabx li kien ghal kollox wiehed idoneju biex jiskongura kontra l-mal-funzjonament ta’ loggett komprat;
(3) Kwantu ghall-Artikolu 76 ta’ l-Att imsemmi dan irid jinqara unitament ma’ l-Artikoli 74 u 75 li jippreceduh. In sintesi, hu nkombenti fuq il-kummercjant illi f’ kaz ta’ nuqqas ta’ konformita` fil-oggett mibjugh, dan ghandu jipprovdi rimedju. L-ghazla tax-xorta ta’ rimedju hi fil-poter esklussiv tal-konsumatur. Huwa jista’ jopta jew gharriparazzjoni jew rimpjazzament ta’ l-oggett, basta li dan ma jkunx hekk sproporzjonat u gravuri fuq il-kummercjant, jew li jsir diminuzzjoni fil-prezz tieghu, jew, sahansitra, rrexxissjoni tal-ftehim meta n-nuqqas ta’ konformita ma jkunx wiehed minuri u insinjifikanti. Id-ditta appellanti la quddiem it-Tribunal, u lanqas issa minn xi spjegazzjoni konkreta, ma pprovat, jew ikkonvincit, illi n-non konformita` kienet wahda minuri jew insinjifikanti. LArbitru, f’ dan il-kaz, iddecieda fuq il-fatti pprezentati u pprovati quddiemu u mhux fuq dak li seta’ gie ippruvat jew
kontrappost, u baqa’ ma giex. Proprju l-“gustizzja sostantiva” ghal liema jikkollega ruhu l-Artikolu 21 (1) ta’ l- Att jinvolvi fih dik ta’ l-uzu tad-diskrezzjoni prudenzjali
konfluwita fil-massima “iuxta alligata et probata”, u mhux ukoll f’ dik ta’ xi prova jew difiza astratta li mill-atti ma tirrizultax. Ugwalment, taht dan l-aspett din il-Qorti ma tistax taccetta l-kongettura propunjata mid-ditta appellanti ta’ xi uzu hazin tal-pipe da parti ta’ l-appellata, meta dan hu mill-provi eskluz;
(4) Fl-ahharnett, ma jidherx fil-kontingenzi ta’ dan il-kaz, illi l-appellata giet li tiflet, minn xi kondotta passiva taghha, id-dritt li tazzjona ghar-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt. Hi agixxiet fil-pront malli skopriet l-imperfezzjoni rizultanti filpipe ta’ l-isteamer u jekk ir-rimedju inizzjali adoperat midditta appellanti nstab li ma kienx hekk konfacjenti skond lahjar teknika, ma tistax tigi rinfaccjata bil-fatt illi hi rremedjabilment tilfet il-beneficcju li tipprosegwi ghattutela tad-drittijiet taghha ghaliex zammet l-oggett. Pretensjoni bhal din da parti tad-ditta appellanti ma tirrendix gustizzja ma’ l appellata, u dan mhux accettabbli ghal din il-Qorti. Ghal dawn il-motivi kollha l-appell hu michud u s-sentenza appellata, ikkonfermata, bl-ispejjez kontra d-ditta
appellanti.