The facts of the case
A consumer bought a set of five internal doors from a local company. During installation the consumer noticed that some of the doors were split from the part where the hinges are attached. Since this was a minor defect, the consumer accepted the trader’s offer to have €80 deducted from the outstanding payment. However, three months after the doors’ installation, all five doors started expanding, and due to this one of the doors could not close.
The consumer reported these problems to the company which offered to replace the internal doors. However, since the doors developed such a serious defect in such a short time, the consumer wanted to cancel the sales contract and claim a full refund of the money paid. The trader refused the consumer’s request and insisted that they should be allowed to replace the defective doors.
As no agreement was reached, the consumer registered an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start a conciliation process. Despite the office’s intervention, no amicable agreement was reached between the two parties. The consumer was then offered the option to submit his claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal noted that the consumer was claiming a refund of €1,450, which is the price paid for the set of internal doors that turned out to be defective three months after installation. To this claim, the company replied that the doors had a manufacturing defect and to remedy this they offered to replace all the doors free of charge. This remedy was offered despite the fact that only two out of the five doors had serious defects.
To sustain his claim about the doors’ serious defect, the consumer submitted photos of the internal doors, which showed that the doors were expanding from the part where the lock is, which defect makes it difficult for the doors to close properly.
The trader insisted they should be allowed to replace the doors
The tribunal noted that the submitted photos leave no doubt that the quality of the internal doors was inferior and definitely not what the consumer expected when she bought them.
Article 74(1) of the Consumer Affairs Act stipulates that “in the event of a lack of conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the goods brought into conformity or to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the contract”.
The tribunal further considered that even though the company showed goodwill in its offer to replace the doors free of charge, one cannot deny the fact that the supplied doors manifested serious defects within a short time and the consumer cannot be blamed for losing trust in the products supplied by the company.
Finally, the tribunal noted that the consumer’s request to terminate the contract of sale falls within the parameters of her legal rights.
The tribunal’s decision
Upon consideration of the above, and after taking into account the provisions of chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta (Consumer Affairs Act), the tribunal decided to uphold the consumer’s claim and ordered the defendant company to pay the sum of €1,450.
The tribunal also ordered the company that once the refund is issued, it must uninstall and remove the doors from the consumer’s house at its own expense.
The expenses of the tribunal’s sitting must also be paid by the defendant company.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.