Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=7041&idCountry=19&plang=en&action=maximize
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 22:05:50+00:00
Document Index: 1479301

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

Micallef vs Orienta
Nello Micallef
Orienta Limited
cessation of contract, consumer goods, consumer rights, court, durable medium, sales contract
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, RECITALS, (15) Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 5. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 1. Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 2.
(1) A consumer has no obligation to deposit an object at court in order to request a rescission of the sale, under the Consumer Affairs Act, however the consumer may not continue to make use of the object while also demanding a rescission of the sale.
(2) The Tribunal, when rescission is permitted, may reduce the amount returned to the consumer to take into account the use the consumer has already made of the object. Directive 1999/44/EC provides for such yet this was not implemented in Maltese law. Notwithstanding this, applying the principles of equity, by virtue of Article 21 of the Consumer Affairs Act, the Tribunal may still apply such a reduction.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants before the Consumer Claims Tribunal, claiming that a sofa he had bought from the defendants was not made of leather as the defendants had claimed and that it was also of inferior quality. The Tribunal found in favour of the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff had not deposited the sofa with the Court and thus the plaintiff’s action had failed. The plaintiff then appealed this decision.
The court disagreed with the Consumer Claims Tribunal in so far as the consumer cannot be expected to deposit the sofa in court. However the Court of appeal went on to say that although the consumer does not have the obligation to deposit the sofa in court, this does not mean that the consumer is at liberty to continue using the sofa while also expecting the sale to be rescinded due to faults in the sofa.
(2) Can the amount returned to the consumer, in respect of defective goods, be reduced by a court?
The plaintiff's appeal was rejected and the appealed decision was confirmed by the court.
L-attur harrek lis-socjeta konvenuta fit-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur fejn ilmenta li sufan li kien xtara minghand il-konvenuta:
i.	Ma kienx tal-gilda, kuntrarjament ghal dak li kien qallu l-bejjiegh meta sar il-bejgh;
ii.	Il-kwalita tal-materjal kien inferjuri.
B’sentenza tas-27 ta’ Marzu 2015, it-Tribunal:
i.	Cahad l-eccezzjoni tal-konvenuta li l-attur ma kienx ta l-avviz kontemplat fl-Artikolu 79 tal-Kap. 378.
ii.	Laqa’ l-eccezzjoni li ladarba l-attur ma ddepozitax is-sufan taht l-awtorita’ tal-qorti, tfalli l-azzjoni tal-attur.
L-appellant appella u l-aggravju hu:-
“Illi l-Artikolu 21 tal-Kap. 378 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta jishaq li t-Tribunal ghandu jsegwi linji ta’ ekwita’ u l-formalitajiet ghandhom jitqiesu b’anqas restrizzjoni.
Illi tali applikazzjoni ta’ procedura civili hija ghal kollox estraneja ghal-proceduri li kienu mahsuba quddiem dan it-Tribunal li gie kkreat specifikatament sabiex ihaffef il-proceduri b’anqas formalitajiet minn dawk li huma applikabbli strettament il-Qorti u dan sabiex l-istess konsumatur ikun aktar protett u f’anqas zmien u b’anqas pressjoni fuq il-Qrati nostrani ghal kwistjonijiet ta’ natura pekunjarji.
Jinghad ukoll li minn imkien mill-provi ma jirrizulta sufficjentement li s-socjeta intimata konvenuta appellata, fil-fatt ghaddiet l-oggett maqbul u pattwit.”
L-appellata wiegbet li t-Tribunal ibbaza d-decizjoni fuq gurisprudenza kostanti. Il-formalita tad-depozitu kellha tigi osservata, ghaliex inkellha jistghu jigu pregudikati l-partijiet. Il-fatt li l-appellant ma ddepozitax is-sufan taht l-awtorita tal-qorti, jippregudika l-jedd ta’ azzjoni. Min-naha taghha pproponiet appell incidentali u ghadha ssostni li l-appellant ma tax l-avviz kontemplat fl-Artikolu 79(1) tal-Kap. 378. L-appellant kien ilu jaf bil-hsara li kien qed jikkawza lis-sufan izda naqas li, fi zmien xahrejn minn meta ntebah b’tali hsara, javza lill-kummercjant u cioe’ lis-socjeta appellata skond l-Artikolu 79(2) tal-Kap. 378.
Il-qorti rat l-atti u semghet it-trattazzjoni.
1.	Fl-4 ta’ April 2013, l-appellant xtara sufan minghand is-socjeta appellata ghall-prezz ta’ €1,240.
2.	L-appellant isostni li wara xi tmien xhur, parti mis-sufan iccartet. Is-socjeta appellata ghamlet it-tiswija xi xahrejn jew tlett xhur wara, ghas-spejjez taghha.
3.	F’Ottubru 2014 l-appellant rega’ ilmenta li partijiet ohra tas-sufan bdew jiccartu. Il-posizzjoni li hadet l-appellanti kienet li s-sufan kienu ilu li nxtara iktar minn sitt xhur u ‘wear and tear’ hu normali jekk is-sufan jintuza kontinwament. Il-konvenuta kienet disposta li tassisti lill-attur biex issir it-tiswija, pero ghas-spejjez tieghu.
4.	L-appellant isostni li s-sufan m’huwiex tal-gilda, u meta xtrah qalulu li kien tal-gilda. F’dan ir-rigward ipprezenta leaflet li fih jidher is-sufan u l-kliem: “Type of Material LEATHER.”
5.	Fl-24 ta’ Novembru 2014 l-attur ipprezenta l-kawza fejn talab ghal rifuzjoni tal-prezz. Dan ifisser li l-appellant harrek lis-socjeta konvenuta ghar-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt, rimedju kontemplat fl-Artikolu 76 tal-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur (Kap. 378).
Konsiderazzjoni.
1.	Mill-atti jirrizulta li l-ewwel darba li l-appellant ilmenta kien lejn l-ahhar tas-sena 2013. Il-konvenuta ndirizzat l-ilment tal-appellant, u sewwiet il-hsara fis-sufan.
2.	F’Ottubru 2014 l-appellant rega’ lmenta li f’partijiet ohra tas-sufan kienu rega’ zviluppa xi ticrit. Din id-darba s-socjeta appellanti rrifjutat li tirrimedja, u argumentat li dak li gara kien minhabba wear and tear normali.
3.	Min-naha tieghu l-appellant kien pront ippropona proceduri quddiem it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumaturi, fejn talab lura l-flus. Sa dak iz-zmien kienu ghadhom m’ghaddewx is-sentejn kontemplati fl-Artikolu 78 tal-Kap. 378 sabiex l-appellant jipproponi l-azzjoni ta’ nuqqas ta’ konformita tal-oggett.
4.	L-appellant qieghed isostni li hemm nuqqas ta’ konformita tas-sufan, peress li:
i.	Gie mwieghed li s-sufan hu tal-gilda, filwaqt li kien irrizultalu li mhuwiex;
ii.	Il-materjal tas-sufan beda jiccarat f’partijiet differenti u ghalhekk il-kwalita’ tal-materjal li ntuza kien difettuz;
5.	Waqt is-smigh tal-kawza quddiem it-Tribunal, gie kkonfermat li s-sufan kien baqa’ fil-pussess tal-appellant. Dan wassal lit-Tribunal biex jiddikjara li gialadarba l-appellant ma ddepozitax is-sufan taht l-awtorita tal-qorti, allura tilef il-jedd li jfittex ghal rimedju. F’dan ir-rigward il-qorti ghamlet riferenza ghal sentenza tal-Prim’Awla tad-9 ta’ Gunju 2005, Joseph Vella nomine vs Anthony Migneco et nomine.
6.	Il-qorti tosserva li:
i.	Ma tezisti l-ebda opportunita li xerrej jiddepozita l-oggett mixtri fil-qorti.
ii.	L-appellant ippropona l-azzjoni qabel skadew is-sentejn.
iii.	L-appellant kien pront u konsistenti fl-ilmenti li ghamel mas-socjeta appellata. Meta sar it-tieni ilment, l-appellata ma kinitx disposta taghti rimedju lill-appellant in kwantu bdiet issostni li dan kien kaz ta’ wear and tear bl-uzu.
iv.	Fl-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur, ma jissemma l-ebda obbligu li l-konsumatur ikollu jiddepozita l-oggett taht l-awtorita tal-qorti sabiex ikun jista’ jipproponi l-azzjoni ghar-rexxissjoni tal-bejgh minhabba nuqqas ta’ konformita tal-oggett li xtara.
v.	Skond l-Artikolu 1209 tal-Kodici Civili:
“Bir-rexxissjoni ta’ kuntratt, jekk il-ligi ma tiddisponix xort’ohra, il-partijiet jigu mqieghda fl-istat li fih kienu qabel il-ftehim.”
Ovvjament hu mpossibbli ghax-xerrej li jaghti lura l-oggett fl-istat li kien qabel il-ftehim, in kwantu ragonevolment ikun ghamel uzu minnu ghallinqas zgur sakemm intebah bin-nuqqas ta’ konformita. Skond paragrafu 15 tal-parti preliminari tad-Direttiva 1999/44/EC:
“Whereas Member States may provide that any reimbursement to the consumer may be reduced to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods since they were delivered to him; whereas the detailed arrangements whereby rescission of the contract is effected may be laid down in national law.”
F’dan ir-rigward ma jirrizultax li fil-Kap. 378 hemm xi disposizzjoni li tipprovdi li s-somma dovuta lix-xerrej tista’ titnaqqas biex tiehu in konsiderazzjoni l-uzu li jkun ghamel minn meta l-oggett gie kkonsenjat. Gialadarba t-Tribunal ghandu dmir jiddeciedi wkoll skond l-ekwita (Artikolu 21 tal-Kap. 378), jekk jirrizulta li l-konsumatur ikun uza l-oggett sakemm intebah bin-nuqqas ta’ konformita, jidher li m’hemm xejn milli jzomm lit-Tribunal milli jirriduci s-somma li ghandha tithallas lill-konsumatur sabiex jiehu in konsiderazzjoni ta’ tali fatt.
vi.	Minkejja s-sentenza li ccita t-Tribunal, hemm gurisprudenza li addottat il-fehma li n-nuqqas ta’ depozitu u z-zamma tal-oggett, mhux dejjem twassal ghat-telfien ta’ jedd ghax-xerrej li jitlob ir-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt (ara sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Appell (Superjuri) fil-kawza
Medcomms Limited vs Peter Muscat Scerri, 31 ta’ Jannar 2014). Pero’ l-problema fil-kaz tal-lum hu li l-appellant zamm l-oggett ghandu, u probabilment baqa’ jaghmel uzu minnu. Ghallinqas m’hemmx prova kuntrarja. Fis-sentenza citata kien irrizulta li l-appellant kien ghamel uzu mill-oggett, li kien apparat ta’ dghajsa, ghal 43 siegha biss u mbaghad waqaf juzah.
vii.	Minhabba li l-appellant zamm l-oggett u probabilment baqa’ jaghmel uzu minnu, ghallinqas m’hemmx prova kuntrarja, ma jistax jippretendi li l-kuntratt jigi rexxiss. Wiehed irid jiftakar li l-oggett meritu tal-kawza jitratta dwar sufan li l-prezz tieghu kien ta €1,240. Li tibqa’ zzomm is-sufan u taghmel uzu minnu, mhuwiex kompatibbli mar-rifjut ta’ oggett u ma’ talba ghar-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt ta’ bejgh.
7.	L-appell incidentali jitratta dwar il-htiega tal-konsumatur li jaghti avviz bil-miktub lill-kummercjant fit-terminu kontemplat fl-Artikolu 79 tal-Kap. 378:
“(1) Sabiex ikun jista’ jikseb beneficcju mir-rimedji disponibbli taht din it-Taqsima, konsumatur ghandu javza lill-kummercjant bil-miktub b’kull nuqqas ta’ konformita fi zmien xahrejn mid-data meta l-konsumatur ikun intebah b’dan n-nuqqas ta’ konformita.”
8.	Il-qorti tosserva:
i.	Li dwar l-ilment li hemm partijiet mis-sufan li mhumiex tal-gilda, hu evidenti li l-appellant qieghed jibbazah fuq rapport li sar minn certu
James O’Flaherty u datat 19 ta’ Novembru 2014. Dan jaghti lill-qorti x’tifhem li kien f’dak iz-zmien li l-appellant sar jaf bil-fatt li qieghed jilmenta dwaru. Ladarba l-kawza giet prezentata f’dak l-istess xahar u giet notifikata lill-appellata fis-26 ta’ Novembru 2014, kien ghadu ma skadiex it-terminu kontemplat fl-Artikolu 79 tal-Kap. 378.
ii.	Fir-rigward ta’ ticrit fil-materjal tas-sufan li l-appellant isostni li jirrendi l-materjal ta’ kwalita inferjuri u ghalhekk b’nuqqas ta’ konformita, jirrizulta li nizjalment l-appellant sab ticrita wahda fis-sufan. Hu lmenta mal-appellanti, mhux maghruf jekk bil-miktub jew bil-fomm, li min-naha taghha hadet hsieb li ssir it-tiswija. Fil-fehma tal-qorti l-appellata
m’ghandhiex jedd tipprova tiehu beneficcju minn dak li jipprovdi l-Artikolu 79 meta rrizulta li l-ewwel darba assumiet ir-responsabbilta biex tissewwa t-ticrita li kien hemm fis-sufan. Fil-fatt is-sufan issewwa minn tappezzar u l-appellata hallset ghat-tiswija. Jidher li f’Ottubru 2014 l-appellant skopra li l-materjal kien qieghed jiccarrat minn bnadi ohra. Il-qorti hi tal-fehma li kien f’dan iz-zmien li l-appellant intebah (detected) li s-sufan kellu nuqqas ta’ konformita, u dan billi jsostni li partijiet differenti mis-sufan bdew jiccartu.
iii.	Fil-fatt baghat ritratt lill-appellata (email 7 ta’ Ottubru 2014). Il-qorti fehemet li dawn ir-ritratti ntbaghtu fl-istess zmien li l-appellat rega’ sab ticrit fis-sufan. Pero’ din id-darba l-appellata hadet il-posizzjoni li: “I would consider any future complaints as normal wear and tear of the product for which we cannot be held further responsible (email datata
8 ta’ Ottubru 2014). L-avviz li jrid jinghata skont l-Artikolu 79 irid ikun bil-miktub, u l-appellant ta avviz bil-miktub (email tat-8 ta’ Ottubru 2014) fi zmien xahrejn minn meta rega’ skopra iktar ticrit.
1.	Tichad l-appell bl-ispejjez kontra l-appellant.
2.	Tichad l-appell incidentali bl-ispejjez kontra s-socjeta appellata.
Anthony Ellul.