Article 6 1. (g)
||National ID||Rotterdam District Court 25 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5540|
|Country||The Netherlands||Decision date||25/07/2013|
|Common name||Rotterdam District Court 25 July 2013, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:5540||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Rechtbank Rotterdam||Plaintiff(s)||BCC (Elektro Speciaalzaken) B.V.|
|Court translation||Rotterdam District Court||Defendant(s)||Autoriteit Consument en Markt|
|Keywords||consumer rights, misleading commercial practices, misleading statements, repair|
+ Expand all
Not providing consumers with correct information about their possibility to replace or have repaired their goods in case of non-conformity, constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
The plaintiff sells household appliances and electronics. The defendant, being the Dutch Consumer Authority, conducted an inquiry into plaintiff's compliance with rules regarding warranty and conformity (as set out in the Dutch Civil Code).
The defendant held that plaintiff's sellers provide consumers with incorrect information which misleads consumers about their right to free repair or replacement in the event of non-conformity of the product concerned. This may cause the consumer to waive its right to free repair or replacement, which he would not have done if he was informed correctly.
Therefore, the defendant concluded that it was likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise, which constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
The defendant imposed a fine on the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied that the defendant was entitled to impose such fine and denied that there was a breach of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does not providing consumers with correct information about their possibility to replace or have repaired their goods in case of non-conformity, constitute a misleading commercial practice?
According to the court, a trader (plaintiff) may reasonably be expected to provide consumers with clear, comprehensive and understandable information about the consequences of a non-conformity of the goods and the right to repair and replacement.
Providing false information is regarded as a misleading commercial practice. By providing such misleading information, consumers are prejudiced in their legitimate interests.
The defendant was therefore entitled to take enforcement action. The fine imposed was appropriate and necessary.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff's request 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.|