Article 5 2. (b)
|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|
|Keywords||consumer rights, discounts, information obligation, price information, promotional sales|
+ Expand all
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.
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.
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?
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|
The plaintiff’s request was granted.
|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.|