Case detailB a c k
Article 5 2.
Article 7 1.
Article 8 al1
Article 9 al1
|Common name||12/07664||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Cour d''appel de Versailles||Plaintiff(s)||Vincent Stéphane D. B.|
|Court translation||Court of Appeals Versailles||Defendant(s)||Société Sony Europe Ltd.|
|Keywords||aggressive commercial practices, material information, misleading omissions, omission, price information, unordered product|
+ Expand all
Selling computers with pre-installed software without detailing the price of the software does not constitute an unfair commercial practice as long as the consumer knew the existence of such software and would have been able to purchase a different configuration from another seller.
The plaintiff bought a computer with pre-installed software in a supermarket. Plaintiff brought legal action against the defendant in order to be refunded the software, claiming that the defendant did not leave him any choice but to buy the computer with the pre-installed software even though he did not want such software. In first instance, the court denied the plaintiff's request because it considered the defendant did not commit any unfair commercial practice.
Does selling computers with pre-installed software without detailing the price of the software, constitute an unfair commercial practice?
The court held that the plaintiff decided to buy the computer knowing the existence of the pre-installed software. The computer with pre-installed software was solicited by the plaintiff. Therefore, this sale did not constitute an unfair commercial practice per se.
According to the court, the defendant was free to buy from another seller with another configuration and could have had the computer refunded if it realized that it did not correspond to its expectations. The defendant's behaviour was therefore not altered. In addition, the sale of turnkey computers is generally expected and requested by consumers. This was therefore not contrary to professional diligence. The sale therefore did not constitute an unfair commercial practice.
Further, the court held that the plaintiff came to the store voluntarily and had not been harassed or coerced. Therefore, according to the court, the sale did not constitute an aggressive commercial practice.
Finally, it was held that the amount of product information was sufficient, and that the defendant had no obligation to detail the price of each component. Therefore, the sale did not constitute a misleading commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff's claim was denied.
|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.|