Review of Court Practice in Cases on Protection of Consumer Rights in Russia 2023. Vadim Snegirev

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ by a forensic examination, as well as compensation for moral damages and a fine for failure to voluntarily meet consumer requirements.

      The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court, additionally pointing out that the choice of the person obligated at the consumer’s request in this case belongs to the consumer, and therefore recognized the complaint’s argument that the five-year warranty period applicable to construction work was not based on the law. should be used in relation to the apartment developer.

      The Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction left the court rulings in the case unchanged.

      The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court recognized the decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation as made in significant violation of the rules of law, canceled them and sent the case for a new appeal hearing.

      According to paragraph 1 of Article 475 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the defects of the goods were not specified by the seller, the buyer to whom the goods of inadequate quality were transferred has the right, at his choice, to demand from the seller, among other things, reimbursement of his expenses for eliminating the defects of the goods.

      If a warranty period or expiration date is not established for the goods, claims related to defects in the goods may be presented by the buyer, provided that the defects in the sold goods were discovered within a reasonable time, but within two years from the date of transfer of the goods to the buyer or within a longer period the period when such a period is established by law or the purchase and sale agreement (clause 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

      A similar rule is provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

      The court of first instance, assessing the nature of the controversial legal relations that arose between the parties, did not take into account the fact that legal relations had arisen between the parties arising from the real estate purchase and sale agreement dated June 6, 2016, in which the company (defendant) acts as the seller, and D. and S. – buyers. The developer of the building where the plaintiffs’ apartment is located is not the defendant, but another legal entity.

      The relationship between the seller and the buyer is regulated by Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Chapter 2 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

      Meanwhile, the court erroneously, when considering the dispute, was guided by paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, which is subject to application when protecting consumer rights when performing work (providing services), and came to the erroneous conclusion that claims related to defects in real estate, may be brought against the seller of real estate, who is not the developer, within five years after the conclusion of the purchase and sale agreement.

      If the purchase and sale agreement for an apartment does not establish a warranty period for the apartment, and the law does not stipulate special periods during which the buyer could make a claim regarding the quality of the acquired real estate, then by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 477 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph two of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law on the protection of consumer rights, the period for submitting claims to the seller regarding defects in the apartment is two years from the date of its transfer to the buyers.

      The courts have established that, under the purchase and sale agreement, the plaintiffs were given residential premises corresponding to the terms of the agreement dated June 6, 2016, the apartment was inspected by the buyers, the agreement has the force of an acceptance certificate, signed by the parties without claims to the property in the form in which it was at the time of certification of the contract.

      According to the conclusion of the judicial construction and technical examination, the identified defects are obvious and could have been discovered by the plaintiffs when the apartment was transferred to them, but for two years the buyers did not contact the seller with any claims, which was not taken into account by the courts.

      Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court dated August 30, 2022 N 51-KG22-6-K8.

      7. The presence of a defect in a technically complex product that reappears during the warranty period after measures have been taken to eliminate it is an independent basis for satisfying the requirement to replace a low-quality product. At the same time, the possibility of eliminating such a defect, the proportionality of costs and the insignificance of time spent on eliminating it, as well as the absence of a ban on the use of goods with this defect, have no legal significance

      T. filed a lawsuit against the company (seller) for the protection of consumer rights, indicating that a car purchase and sale agreement had been concluded between the parties. The car has a warranty period, during the period of which the buyer repeatedly contacted the official dealer to eliminate various deficiencies, including those related to the violation of the integrity of the driver’s seat trim, which appeared again. The claim to replace the car with a similar one was left unsatisfied by the defendant.

      Refusing to satisfy the claims for replacement of goods and compensation for damages, as well as for the collection of a penalty, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that although the declared defect in the form of a violation of the integrity of the covering of the driver’s seat trim does exist and appeared again after its elimination, however, this defect is not irreparable and does not impair the use of the vehicle.

      The court also indicated that during the consideration of the case, it was not established that it was impossible to use a technically complex product during each year of the warranty period in total for more than thirty days due to the repeated elimination of its various shortcomings.

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

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 СКАЧАТЬ