Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idCountry=19&idTaxonomy=5964&plang=en&init=true
Timestamp: 2020-01-18 06:54:30+00:00
Document Index: 578021

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

Jason Pace v Carmelo sive Charles Borg Paul Borg Antiques
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2, 2.
Conformity with the description given by the seller
Plaintiff purchased a painting which was supposedly an antique oil painting for the price of five hundred Maltese liri. The Tribunal decided not to uphold the claim noting that the price paid was agreed to by the parties and plaintiff did not raise any objection when buying the painting. Plaintiff appealed this decision contending that the Tribunal failed to adequately to consider his contention that the painting was not of the promised quality. In doing so plaintiff argued that this decision was contrary to the principles of law as laid in down in the Consumer Affairs Act. Defendant in his reply to plaintiff’s appeal said that an appeal could only be made if there was a denial of natural justice to the extent that this was prejudicial to the rights of the party seeking redress.
Court noted that plaintiff in substance was asking for the rescission of the contract of sale and for the refund of the money paid by him for the acquisition of the painting. According to articles 74 and 76 of the Consumer Affairs Act, it is up to the buyer to choose what remedy to seek. Seeking redress on the basis of articles 74 and 76 implies that the contract although valid, is defective and therefore annullable. This in turn means that when the object purchased is not in conformity with the description given by the seller, then on the basis of articles 73(1)(a) and (d) of the Consumer Affairs Act, the buyer is entitled to seek redress.
The Court noted that from the records of the case heard in the first instance before the Tribunal it resulted that at the moment of purchase, plaintiff acted on defendant’s description that the painting in question was a genuine antique. The Court observed that this particular quality was a determining factor in the decision of the buyer to purchase the painting. The Court further noted that the expert witness who testified before the Tribunal confirmed that the painting was not an antique but a reproduction. The Court decided to uphold plaintiff’s appeal given that the crucial point was that plaintiff when buying the painting was told by defendant that it was a genuine antique painting when in realty it was not. The Court in granting redress to plaintiff ordered the refund of the amount paid by plaintiff for the acquisition of the said painting once the said painting is returned by plaintiff to defendant.
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza
Pagna 1 minn 7
Qrati tal-Gustizzja
PHILIP SCIBERRAS
Seduta tad-9 ta' Jannar, 2008
Appell Civili Numru. 11/2007
Jason Pace vs
Carmelo sive Charles Borg f’ ismu proprju kif ukoll
ghan-nom tad-ditta Paul Borg Antiques
Fit-12 ta’ April, 2007, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal- Konsumaturi ppronunzja s-segwenti sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:-
“It-Tribunal
Wara li ha konjizzjoni ta’ l-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentat fis-17 ta’ Ottubru 2007 fejn irrikorrenti talab danni ta’ hames mija u sebgha u hamsin Liri Maltin (Lm557) rapprezentanti hames mitt lira Maltija (Lm500) bhala prezz ta’ pittura illi allegatament ma kienetx antika u sebgha u hamsin lira Maltija (Lm57) bhala spejjez addizzjonali malkaz oltre l-imghax legali mit-28 ta’ Lulju 2006;
L-intimat ipprezenta risposta ghal din it-talba u attenda ghas-seduta.
Illi wara li sema’ x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li huwa listess rikorrenti, u wara li sema’ x-xhieda ta’ l-intimat li huwa l-istess intimat, u wara li ha konjizzjoni talfatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha tal-kaz;
Ir-rikorrenti xtara pittura minghand l-intimat ghallprezz ta’ Lm500 li allegatament kienet “Antique Oil Painting Saint” izda li fil-fatt ma kienetx antika;
L-intimat issottometta illi din il-pittura ghandha madwar minn mitt sena u ai termini ta’ l-Artikolu 73 tal-Kapitolu 378 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta din titqies bhala antika.
It-Tribunal ikkonsidra l-verzjoni ta’ Dr. Keith Sciberras, Lecturer fl-Universita` ta’ Malta dwar listorja ta’ l-Arti u tas-Sur Maurice Cordina, exrestawratur ewlieni fil-Muzew ta’ l-Arti.
Ikkonsidra Artikolu 3 tal-Kapitolu 445 u Artikolu 2 tal- Kapitolu 342 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta.
It-Tribunal jinnota illi Kapitolu 342 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta ma jistax jigi applikat ghaliex il-pittura ma gietx mixtrija waqt irkant izda inxtrat minghand venditur ta’ l-antikitajiet.
Jinnota wkoll illi l-prezz imhallas mir-rikorrenti huwa dak li kien miftiehem bejn il-partijiet u l-istess rikorrenti ma oggezzjonax ghall-prezz waqt il-bejgh.
It-Tribunal jichad t-talba tar-rikorrenti bl-ispejjez jigu sopportati ugwalment bejn il-partijiet.”
L-attur appella minn din is-sentenza biex jitlob ir-revoka taghha. L-aggravju ewlieni tieghu hu kkoncentrat fuq issottomissjoni illi t-Tribunal ma ezaminax adegwatament ilkontenzjoni tieghu illi l-pittura minnu mixtrija minghand ilkonvenut
ma kienetx tal-kwalita` pattwita. Dan kemm millat fattwali tal-materja, kif ukoll mill-konsiderazzjoni talprincipji tad-dritt applikabbli skond l-Att XXVIII ta’ l-1994 (Kapitolu 378);
Fit-twegiba tieghu l-konvenut jopponilu, fl-ewwel lok, ilinammissibilita` ta’ l-appell ghal motiv li dan ma jinkwadrax ruhu fil-parametri ta’ l-Artikolu 22 (2) ta’ l-Att, ghal liema hu akkordat appell fil-kaz biss li d-decizjoni tkun marret kontra d-dettami ta’ gustizzja naturali, u dik lazzjoni tkun ippregudikat b’ mod gravi l-jedd ta’ min jappella. Fis-sostenn tieghu ta’ din il-pregudizzjali lkonvenut jirrikorri ghall-osservazzjoni illi l-aggravju dedott jirrigwarda, sostanzjalment, censura ta’ l-apprezzament tal-provi mit-Tribunal dwar jekk il-pittura venduta minnu kienetx “antika”, u dik tat-tifsira legali li riedet tinghata lil din il-kwalita`. Fir-rigward, huwa jaghmel accenn ghal skorta ta’ decizjonijiet ta’ din l-istess Qorti, u dan biex jenfasizza l-punt illi l-valutazzjoni tal-provi mit-Tribunal tesorbita mis-sindikabilita` tal-Qorti ta’ revizjoni;
Huwa opportun illi, qabel xejn, jigi mfakkar illi fi zmenijiet pjuttost ricenti din il-Qorti, kif presjeduta, amplifikat sewwa l-koncetti tradizzjonali tal-gustizzja naturali, senjatament, ir-regola audi alteram partem. Dan ghamlitu principalment fid-decizjoni taghha tat-28 ta’ Marzu, 2007 fil-kawza flismijiet “Mary Zarba -vs- Emma Azzopardi nomine”, fejn fiha giet mistharrga n-natura multiformi tal-principju, senjatament il-punt illi “l-process ghandu jipproduci dik iddecizjoni akkurata li tirrifletti l-verifiki korretti ta’ fatt u ta’ lapplikazzjoni tal-ligi”. Hu fid-dawl ta’ din l-affermazzjoni illi l-Qorti jehtiegilha tinvesti jekk kienx hemm fil-kaz in ispecje ksur tal-principju suddett. Ghal fatt illi, kif ritenut mill-appellanti, it-Tribunal naqas milli jippresta attenzjoni xierqa lil mertu tal-kaz u, ukoll, milli jforni dawk ir-ragunijiet guridici li t-talba kif proposta kienet timmerita;
Dikjaratament, it-talba ta’ l-attur appellanti hi tendenti ghar-rexxissjoni tal-kuntratt ta’ kompravendita ta’ pittura minghand il-konvenut appellat u ghar-rifuzjoni tal-prezz imhallas ghall-akkwist taghha. L-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal- Konsumatur jikkolloka talba bhal din, wahda ta’ ghazla esklussiva fil-poter tax-xerrej, fl-Artikoli 74 u 76. Objettivament, u guridikament, ir-rexxissjoni timplika li lkuntratt, ghalkemm validu, hu difettuz, u ghalhekk annullabbli. Li jfisser, li meta l-oggett mixtri ma jkunx konformi mad-deskrizzjoni moghtija mill-venditur, kif minn dan imweghda jew murija jew xort’ ohra ipprezentata jew mix-xerrej aspettata ghal dik li hi l-kwalita` ta’ l-oggett [ara Artikolu 73 (1) (a) u (d)], ix-xerrej hu intitolat ghal dik lazzjoni minnu sperimentata “in quanto che la cosa per cui consentiva risulto` essere tutt’ altra che quella dedotta in contratto … una cosa diversa da quella che era contemplato nel contrattare, e per cui non si concederebbe una azione redibitoria ma quella di nullita`, avente per base la cosa pattuita nel concenso del
compratore” (“Commerciante Michele Grima -vs- Negoziante Arturo von Kohan”, Qorti tal-Kummerc, 28 ta’ Frar, 1884 per Imhallef Paolo Vella);
Premess dan, jirrizulta mill-atti tal-kaz prezenti illi filmument tal-kompravendita, l-attur appellant qaghad fuq kliem l-appellat illi l-pittura kienet, genwinament, antika. Fl-intendiment tieghu din il-kwalita` allegata, hekk parti integrativa tal-kuntratt, kienet element determinanti biex tinducih jixtriha. Verifikat, bl-assistenza ta’ espert kwalifikat fil-persuna ta’ Dr. Keith Sciberras, illi dik ilpittura ma kienetx antika imma biss riproduzzjoni ta’ xoghol antik, huwa ppretenda li gie mill-konvenut indott fi zball u ghadda biex talab ir-rexissjoni tal-ftehim;
Fil-fehma konsiderata ta’ din il-Qorti, il-motivazzjoni tassentenza appellata tippekka kemm fl-aspetti fokali tal-punt kontrovertit mill-partijiet, kemm fl-aspett fattwali u guridiku tal-kwestjoni. Jidher, dejjem fil-hsieb tal-Qorti, illi saret koncentrazzjoni zejda, anke mill-partijiet infushom, fuq jekk il-pittura kienetx tikkwalifika, o meno, ghal dik taddefinizzjoni tal-kelma “antik” moghtija mill-Kapitolu 342 (Att dwar l-Irkantaturi), b’ detriment ghal kwestjoni centrali illi dik l-istess pittura ma kienetx hlief kopja ta’ xoghol antik “that mimics 18th century work” ankorke din kellha ‘l fuq minn mitt sena. Huwa dan l-aspett li kellu jircievi lattenzjoni tat-Tribunal adit, anke ghaliex dan kien jitfa dawl siewi hafna fuq is-sustanza tal-pittura komprata, u laktar dak tal-kriterju subjettiv “relative al modo con cui veniva considerato l’ oggetto della convenzione dal contraente che si è ingannato” (“Avv. Dottor Giuseppe Agius nomine -vs- Francesco Saverio Vassallo et nomine”, Appell Kummercjali, 13 ta’ Gunju 1921);
Bir-rispett kollu din il-Qorti ma tarax illi l-abbinament talprezz ghall-pittura jista’ jkollu xi piz qawwi fil-materja. Kif lanqas ma jista’ jkollu importanza l-fatt illi l-appellat li bieghha xtraha minn irkant. Aktar fundamentali hi lkwalita` asserita tal-pittura in re ipse u dik ta’ l-intenzjoni ta’ l-appellanti meta xtraha. Kwalita` din li, fil-fattispeci talkaz konkret, hemm mir-ricevuta (fol. 69) rilaxxjata millkonvenut, kif ukoll mid-deskrizzjoni ta’ l-irkantatur Joseph Sammut (fol. 22), kienet manifestament turi li dak mibjugh kien “an antique oil painting”, imma mhux ukoll illi l-pittura nnifisha kienet biss riproduzzjoni ta’ xoghol antik;
Certi decizjonijiet tal-Qrati taghna fuq is-suggett jillustraw ahjar il-punt in diskussjoni:-
1. “È nullo la vendita fatta dall’ incantatore di un oggetto indicato nello avviso di una qualita`, se si trova che effettivamente tale oggetto è di qualita` diversa” (“Emanuele Borg -vs- William Gingell”, Appell Kummercjali, 4 ta’ Novembru 1907). F’ dan il-kaz irrizulta li s-sufan, pultruni u siggijiet ma kienux tal-gewz izda minn injam inferjuri;
2. “Qualunque errore che avrebbe potuto influire sull’ offerta, come errore sopra la qualita` e errore sulla sostanza stesso delle cose rende nullo o almeno annullabile il contratto” (“Negte. James Gollcher -vs- Pubblico Irkantatore William Gingell, Junior”, Qorti tal- Kummerc, 12 ta’ Mejju 1908). F’ dan il-kaz l-oggetti mixtrija nstabu li ma kienux antiki u lanqas f’ korrispondenza mad-deskrizzjoni fil-katalgu. Incidentalment, ukoll, f’ din l-istess decizjoni nghad ukoll illi “la vendita deve essere rescissa indipendentemente dal valore dell’ oggetto e senza necessita` di entrare in questioni di buona o malafede” (Kollez. Vol. XX P III p 74);
3. “Ghaldaqstant jekk wiehed jixtri oggett bhala antik u xtrah ghax antik, u kieku kien jaf li ma kienx antik ma kienx jixtrih u l-izball hu skuzabbli huwa ghandu dritt jopponi n-nullita` tal-bejgh, u dan avolja fil-konvenzjoni ma kienx hemm il-patt espress li kien qed jimbiegh oggett antik, imma fl-istess hin dan kien is-sens tal-ftehim” (“Michael Cachia -vs- Dr. Frank X. Vassallo”, Appell Civili, 20 ta’ Ottubru 1961); Fermi dawn l-ispunti gurisprudenzjali, din il-Qorti ma tistax taccetta bhala proposizzjoni guridika korretta illi lappellanti ma kienx sufficjentement okulat meta ghamel lakkwist u dan ghal fatt tal-prezz baxx li huwa hallas ghallpittura. Jibqa’ l-fatt illi hu xtara dik il-pittura lilu moghtija x’ jifhem li kienet xoghol genwin ta’ l-arti antika mentri firrealta` dan ma kienx hekk il-kaz; Fl-ahharnett, din il-Qorti lanqas ma ssib li ghadda tul ta’ zmien apprezzabbli (anqas minn xahrejn) bejn ix-xiri talpittura u t-tehid tal-proceduri inizzjali bl-ittra ufficcjali biex jista’ jinghad li l-appellanti gie li tilef il-beneficcju tad-dritt ta’ azzjoni fuq dik il-bazi ghax hu zamm l-oggett u ma ddepozitahx kif imiss taht l-Awtorita` tal-Qorti. Il-principju mhux assolut u jvarja minn kaz ghal iehor. Ragonevolment, dan mhux wiehed minn dawk il-kazijiet li jqieghed lill-kompratur, ghal dik ir-raguni, f’ xi zvantagg li ma jistax jesigi li l-kuntratt jigi rexxiss;
In bazi ghal konsiderazzjonijiet kollha maghmula din il- Qorti ssib li l-aggravju hu fondat u li tezisti gustifikazzjoni ghall-akkoljiment tat-talba dedotta fl-Avviz promotur, b’ dan, pero`, li l-ammont pretiz ghandu jkun limitat ghallprezz
imhallas ghall-akkwist tal-pittura.
Ghal dawn il-motivi din il-Qorti qed tilqa’ l-appell u b’ hekk thassar u tirrevoka d-decizjoni tat-Tribunal. Tilqa’ t-talba ta’ l-appellanti kif deodtta fl-Avviz, b’ dan pero` li lkonvenut appellat qed jigi kundannat jirrimborsa lura lillattur appellant is-somma ta’ hames mitt lira Maltin (Lm500). Tali rifuzjoni ghandha issir kontemporanjament mar-rikonsenja lura lill-konvenut tal-pittura in kwestjoni.