Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=6191&idCountry=19&plang=en
Timestamp: 2020-02-18 10:48:10+00:00
Document Index: 1216209

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

Natasha Grech vs G.I. Trading Ltd
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 4. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 5. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 2. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 3. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 4. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 6 , 5.
Plaintiff bought a set of pots and pans from defendant company which goods were subject to 25 year commercial (or voluntary) guarantee on “stainless steel only”. Plaintiff said that after some time she noticed that rust started to result. Plaintiff complained with defendant company which in turn contended that the rust was the result of “over-cooking” since plaintiff did not abide with the user’s instructions given to her and that the guarantee did not apply to the burning of such goods. Plaintiff filed a claim for the replacement of such goods.
Plaintiff in the first instance filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal being the court of first instance. The Tribunal upheld plaintiff’s claims/ However defendant company contested the Tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal. In doing so defendant company raised an initial plea that the Consumer Claims Tribunal had acted in breach of the audi ad alteram partem principle in that it failed to afford defendant company a fair hearing. The Court of Appeal as a preliminary decision given on the 7th May 2010 upheld this preliminary plea and decided to hear the claim itself in accordance with article 22 of the Consumer Affairs Act which empowers the Court of Appeal to hear the claim in such instances.
The Court of Appeal in determining the actual substantive merits of the case noted that it is evident from the claim made that the basis of the action by plaintiff is that the goods purchased where not of the promised quality and that plaintiff was therefore alleging that the defendant company had acted in breach of its contractual obligations and was asking for the payment of damages.
The Court noted that once the sale is not according to what was promised or that the goods purchased are no in conformity with the agreement made or else is not in accordance with a sample of the goods, then the buyer can ask for the nullity of the contract made even though he may have received the goods. The Court in making these observations referred to a Maltese court judgement in the names Commerciante Michele Grima vs Negoziante Arturo von Kohen given by the Commercial Court on the 28th February 1884 whereby that Court had annulled a contract on the basis that the thing purchased was different from that which ordered.
The Court specifically referred to article 73(1) of the Consumer Affairs Act whereby it noted that the wording used in this provision is such as to offer an assurance to the buyer by imposing upon the seller an obligation to ensure that the goods sold are in conformity with the description given by the trader and have the characteristics, features and qualities of the goods which the trader had promised or shown or otherwise held out to the consumer as a sample or model. The Court in doing so expressly referred to the various provisions of article 73(1).
The Court further added that the goods were moreover subject to a commercial guarantee given by the trader, noting that any terms in the said guarantee – as happened in the present case – cannot exclude the wider rights relating to guarantees granted by law.
The Court said that it was not satisfied with defendant company’s argument that consumer may have a bit careless in the use of the goods and did not follow the instructions, given that it was not acceptable for goods sold as new to become rusty after a relatively short period to the extent that these cannot be used. The Court said that conversely it was clear that the goods were not of the agreed quality. In the circumstances the Court upheld consumer’s claim with costs against defendant company and ordered defendant company to provide consumer with new goods within 15 days of the date of judgement, failing which defendant company would then have to refund the cost of the said goods.
Seduta tat-18 ta' Gunju, 2010
Appell Civili Numru. 24/2009
G.I. Trading Ltd
Bis-sentenza taghha tas-7 ta’ Mejju 2010 din il-Qorti ddeterminat l-appell sottomess lilha mir-rikorrenti Natasha Grech billi sabet li t-Tribunal kien illedilha r-regola ta’ gustizzja naturali audi alteram partem u, konsegwentement, annullat is-sentenza. Il-prezenti decizjoni tikkoncerna l-mertu tat-talba mressqa mill-istess rikorrenti quddiem it-Tribunal u li permezz taghha ppretendiet ir-rimpjazzament tas-sett borom minnha komprati minghand is-socjeta` intimata jew ir-rifuzjoni talprezz imhallas ghall-akkwist taghhom;Jigi osservat illi l-borom hekk mixtrija fit-12 ta’ Gunju, 2006 kienu soggetti ghall-garanzija ta’ hamsa u ghoxrin (25) sena “on stainless steel only”. Ir-rikorrenti ilmentat illi wara xi zmien li bdiet tuzahom indunat li l-borom bdew isaddu u pprotestat dwar dan mal-kumpanija venditrici. Din minn naha taghha ddefendiet ruhha billi allegat illi lkonsegwenza tas-sadid kien leffett ta’ “over cooking” in kwantu r-rikorrenti ma segwietx l-istruzzjonijiet bil-miktub ghall-uzu taghhom waqt it-tisjiriet u li l-garanzija ma kienetx tkopri ghall-hruq taghhom;
Huwa mill-ewwel evidenti illi x-xorta ta’ azzjoni esperita mir-rikorrenti hi dik li l-borom minnha komprati ma kienux tal-kwalita mweghda. Fi kliem iehor hi qeghda tallega inadempjenza kontrattwali da parti tas-socjeta` intimata u, allura, qeghda tippretendi d-danni;
Kif osservat, in linea generali d-danni ghandhom tifsira x’aktarx allargata minn dik tassemplici restituzzjoni talprezz jew tar-rimpjazzament ta’ l-oggett mixtri. Dan, izda, ma jfisserx, imbaghad, illi d-danni ma humiex komprensivi tar-rifuzjoni tal-prezz jew tarrimpjazzament ta’ l-oggett jekk ix-xerrej ikun illimita ruhu ghal xi wahda jew ohra minn dawn l-opzjonijiet. Ara a propozitu d-decizjoni ta’ din il-Qorti fl-ismijiet “Karl Francica -vs- Luke Piscopo et”, 9 ta’ Jannar, 2009;
Premess dan, hu accettat illi meta l-bejgh ma jkunx skond dak imwieghed ossija l-oggett mixtri ma jkunx konformi ghall-ftehim appattwit jew ghax ukoll difformi ghallkampjun, ilkompratur jista’ jitlob ir-rizoluzzjoni tal-kuntratt avolja jkun rceva l-oggett tal-bejgh. Dan huwa hekk “in quanto che la cosa per cui consentiva risultò essere tutt’altra che quella dedotta in contratto ... una cosa diversa da quella che era contemplata nel contrattare, e per cioe` non si concederebbe una azione redibitoria ma quella di nullita`, avente per base la cosa pattuita nel consenso del compratore”. (“Commerciante Michele Grima -vs- Negoziante Arturo von Kohen”, Qorti tal- Kummerc, 28 ta’ Frar, 1884. Ara wkoll fejn si tratta ta’ bejgh mhux konformi ghall-kampjun is-sentenza fl-ismijiet “Joseph Hanauer nomine -vs- Giovanni Maria Debono”, Appell Kummercjali, 11 ta’ Ottubru, 1915);
Evidentement, il-qawwa ta’ din il-prospettazzjoni tinhass aktar f’materja ta’ rapport kummercjant- konsumatur skond ma jinzel mid-dispost ta’ l-Artikolu 73 (1) ta’ l-Att dwar l- Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur. L-intensita ta’ dan ilprovvediment ghat-tutela tal-konsumatur huwa talment estiz li joffri assikurazzjoni lix-xerrej billi jimponi obbligu fuq il-bejjiegh illi l-oggetti “ikunu konformi mad-deskrizzjoni moghtija mill-kummercjant u jkollhom il-karatteristici, ilfattizzi u l-kwalitajiet ta’ l-oggetti li l-kummercjant ikun wieghed jew xort’ohra ipprezenta lillkonsumatur bhala kampjun jew mudell (subpara. “a”), ikunu adatti ghalliskop partikulari li ghalih il-konsumatur ikun jehtieghom (subpara. “b”), ikunu adatti ghall-iskop li ghalih oggetti ta’ l-istess tip normalment jintuzaw (subpara “c”) u juru lkwalita u l-kapacita li huma normali f’oggetti ta’ l-istess tip u li l-konsumatur jista’ ragonevolment jistenna ... (subpara “d”);
Terga’ f’dan il-kaz specifiku l-borom hekk mixtrija mirrikorrenti kienu ggarantiti. Jinghad fiddecizjoni fl-ismijiet “Perito Architetto Vincenzo Zarb -vs- Barone Fc. Chapelle”, Appell Civili, 8 ta’ Jannar, 1912, illi “gli effetti della garanzia nella vendita possono essere per convenzione, estesi o ristretti”. Inoltre mbaghad jigi puntwalizzat illi “il-fatt li fuq id-dokument huma mnizzlin certi patti ta’ garanzija, bhal fil-kaz prezenti, ma huwiex bizzejjed, wahdu, biex jeskludi l-garanizji aktar ampji li taghti l-ligi, ghax jehtieg li c-cirkostanzi tal-kaz ikunu juru li l-partijiet fil-fatt riedu u kienu kuntenti b’dik il-limitazzjoni tal-garanzija ghal dik biss li jkun espress fid-dokument b’eskluzjoni tal-garanziji legali, jew inkella li lkondizzjonijiet taddokument ikun inkonciljabbli malgaranzija legali”. (Ara “Joseph Cefai -vs- Carmelo Petroni et nomine”, Appell Kummercjali, 28 ta’ Gunju, 1957. Ara wkoll s-sentenza ta’ din il-Qorti flismijiet “Christopher Falzon -vs- Noel Gauci”, 12 ta’ Gunju, 2009;
Fil-kaz prezenti, kif hekk kien ukoll il-kaz in re: “Dorianne Bartolo Vella -vs- Industrial Motors Limited”, Appell Inferjuri, 26 ta’ Jannar, 2005, il-garanzija konvenzjonali pattwita kienet tikkostitwixxi mezz ta’ tishih ghall-harsien tax-xerrej b’aggunta ghal dawk iggarantiti mil-ligi sija jekk mill-ottika ta’ l-Artikolu 1390 tal-Kodici Civili, sija jekk skond il-previzjoni tal-ligi specjali fl-Artikolu 73 (1) tal- Kapitolu 378 fuq riportat;
Affermati s-suesposti principji ta’ dritt din il-Qorti thoss b’konvinzjoni li ghandha tistqarr illi mhix sodisfatta mil-linja difensjonali tas-socjeta` intimata illi wara zmien pjuttost qasir mix-xiri u l-akkwist tal-borom, ankorke r-rikorrenti setghet kienet xi ftit dizattenta u ma kkonformatx ruhha fedelment ma’ l-istruzzjonijiet, dawn kienu ser isaddu minn taht u minn gewwa u jibdlu wkoll il-kulur. Mhux wisq verosimili jew plawsibbli illi oggett vendut bhala gdid kellu jissubixxi trasformazzjoni tant radikali li ma jibqax inerenti ghall-uzu li ghalih inxtara. Pjuttost, huwa indikattiv illi, tabilhaqq, il-borom ma kienux adatti ghall-karatteristici ta’ stainless steel, u wisq anqas tal-kwalita u tal-kapacita` ghal liema kellhom iservu. Fic-cirkostanzi, il-Qorti thoss li ghandha taccetta bhala legittimu u gustifikat l-ilment tarrikorrenti ghal liema ser tipprovdi lprovvediment infraskritt.
Ghal motivi senjalati din il-Qorti qed tilqa’ t-talba tarrikorrenti u konsegwentement tikkundanna lis-socjeta` venditrici tirrimpjazzalha l-borom b’ohrajn godda fi zmien hmistax-il jum millum. Jekk is-socjeta` intimata tonqos li taghmel dan fit-terminu lilha koncess hija ghandha tirrifondi lir-rikorrenti l-prezz imhallas ghax-xiri tas-sett ta’ borom. L-ispejjez ta’ din is-sentenza u ta’ dik l-ohra pronunzjata fis-7 ta’ Mejju, 2010 jitbatew mis-socjeta` intimata.