The facts of the case
A consumer ordered prescription spectacles from a local company, including the frame and the lenses.
Upon collecting the spectacles, the consumer noticed that the lenses did not fit well in the frame. The consumer informed the trader that she was not satisfied with the spectacles as the lenses protruded outside the frame and hence were not supplied as agreed in the sales contract. The consumer reminded the trader that she had paid extra so that the lenses would look thin and fit well in the frame.
The seller rejected the consumer’s claim, arguing that the lenses could not be manufactured thinner and that it was the consumer who ultimately chose a very expensive frame.
When the seller denied the consumer’s claim, the latter lodged a formal complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start a conciliation process with the aim of reaching an amicable agreement. However, as no agreement was reached, the consumer was offered the possibility to submit a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal for a refund of the money paid for the lenses.
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal noted that while the company had sent a reply after being informed about the consumer’s claim, no representative attended the tribunal sitting. This meant that besides the written reply, the tribunal did not have the possibility to gather more information or statements from the company during the sitting.
The lenses were manufactured as thin as possible- Odette Vella
In their written reply, the company raised four main points. The first one was that the lenses were manufactured as thin as possible; secondly, that the lens edges were not polished but this problem was resolved; the third point concerned the fact that the consumer had spent €794, of which €194 were the cost of the frame, which was one of the most expensive the company sells.
Finally, the company argued that the consumer freely chose to purchase very expensive lenses, which cost did not affect their thickness.
The tribunal noted that at no point did the consumer’s claim mention these four points. The consumer’s claim specifically focuses on the fact that she had ordered very expensive lenses so that these would fit well in the frame she chose.
However, she was supplied with lenses that protruded outside the frame, and thus were not as agreed with the seller. Furthermore, the consumer did not claim a refund of the cost of the frame but only a refund of the money she had paid for the lenses.
During the sitting, the tribunal also had the opportunity to inspect the spectacles with its lenses protruding outside the frame, as the consumer had claimed. The tribunal also noted that it had no reason to doubt the consumer when she claimed that she would not have paid €580 for lenses that did not fit well in the spectacles’ frame.
The tribunal’s decision
Upon consideration of the above-mentioned facts, the tribunal upheld the consumer’s claim and ordered the company to refund the consumer €580 – the full cost of the lenses. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting must be paid by the trader.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA
WWW.MCCAA.ORG.MT