|Directive article||National ID||ref. code: SK/0292/99/2011|
|Common name||Decision type||Administrative decision in appeal|
|Court||Slovenská obchodná inšpekcia, Bratislava||Plaintiff(s)|
|Court translation||Slovak Trade Inspection, Bratislava||Defendant(s)||ASKO – NÁBYTOK, spol. s r.o.|
|Keywords||ability to supply, misleading statements, product characteristics|
+ Expand all
The mentioning of delivery dates of goods in a consumer contract, whilst these delivery dates are not met by the trader, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
The defendant, a retailer, concluded purchase agreements with the consumer. The purchase agreements stipulated specified and agreed delivery periods. However, the delivery periods were not met in any of the cases.
As a result, the consumer stated that the purchase agreements contained false information in relation to the delivery periods and the main characteristics of the goods, such as the availability or delivery dates.
Does the mentioning of delivery dates of goods in a consumer contract, whereas these delivery dates are not met by the trader, constitute a misleading commercial practice?
In a short legal reasoning, the Slovak Trade Inspection first pointed out the the delivery dates of the goods were not met by the defendant, although they were validly agreed in the purachse agreement. As a result, the administrative body held, the information in relation to the delivery dates of the goods provided by the purchaser in the purchase agreements was de facto untrue and therefore such information must be considered as misleading information.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
cThe administrative body imposed a fine of € 700 upon the defendant.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|