European Commission

 

Case detail



Directive article Article 5 2. (b)
National ID I-2759-764/2012
Country Lithuania Decision date 04/06/2012
Common name Decision type Court decision, first degree
Court Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas Plaintiff(s) UAB „Armitana“
Court translation Vilnius Regional Administrative Court Defendant(s) State Consumer Rights Protection Authority
Subject average consumer
Keywords consumer rightsdiscountsinformation obligationprice informationpromotional sales

+ Expand all

Headnote

It does not constitute a misleading commercial practice, when a trader does not inform a consumer on certain discounts, when the consumer itself should have informed the trader that it pertained to a specific group of consumers who would benefit from special actions.

Facts

The defendant received a complaint from a consumer who was a member of a loyalty club, which included being granted discounts in certain shops.

The consumer had visited a shop of the plaintiff, a shoe selling company, where the consumer had not made it clear to the employees of the plaintiff that she was a member of the loyalty club concerned.

The consumer requested whether she could enjoy a discount if she bought a product form the plaintiff, but was told that no discounts would apply, whereas in reality the plaintiff was obliged to offer a discount to members of the loyalty club concerned. The consumer did not further indicate that she was a member of the loyalty club. Later, the consumer filed a complaint against the plaintiff with the defendant for not being offered a discount whereas the plaintiff was obliged to do so.

The defendant imposed a fine on the plaintiff as it considered that the employees of the plaintiff were under the obligation to duly inform customers about all special actions, including discounts for members of the loyalty club concerned. The defendant argued that the fact that the consumer did not herself clearly indicate that she was a member of the loyalty club concerned, does not prejudice the fact that she was not given appropriate information.
 

Legal issue

Does it constitute a misleading commercial practice, when a trader does not inform a consumer on certain discounts, when the consumer itself should have informed the trader that it pertained to a specific group of consumers who would benefit from special actions?

Decision

The court did not agree with the arguments of the defendant. It was of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot be accused of unfair commercial activity as its employees provided sufficient information, based on the information they themselves has received from the consumer.

In essence, the consumer was not informed properly due to her own negligence to present all necessary information to the plaintiff's personnel, i.e. stating that she was a member of the loyalty club concerned.

Consequently, the court stated that the consumer herself had not acted with reasonable care and, thus, the decision of the defendant was considered ill-grounded and rejected.
 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
LT N/A Click here

Result

The plaintiff’s request was granted.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.