The man had to defend the right to TV in four court instances
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court put an end to the case
It took more than two years for a resident of the capital of Bashkortostan to defend his right to a TV. He managed to achieve justice only recently, after he applied for it to the Supreme Court.
As MK became aware, the story began in February 2021, when a man purchased a new TV in an online store. However, the goods were not handed over to him within the prescribed period: the seller unilaterally repudiated the contract of sale.
The money was returned, but the Ufa man was not satisfied with such a turn of the case, and he went to court. By the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Ufa, the citizen’s claim was satisfied, the online store was charged with the obligation to transfer the TV set to the plaintiff and pay a small fee to the local budget.
But this decision did not satisfy the merchants, and they appealed to the court of appeal. The fact is that information was posted on the store’s website that the seller has the right to cancel the order in the absence of goods in the warehouse. The Court of Appeal sided with the store. He proceeded from the fact that the victim could get acquainted with this information, therefore the seller did not have an obligation to transfer the goods. The Court of Cassation agreed with this conclusion.
These failures did not stop the television lover, and he turned to the Sun. After reviewing the circumstances of the case, the court came to the conclusion that it was impossible to agree with the court rulings of the appellate and cassation instances. The store’s arguments about the absence of the TV specified in the contract in the warehouse are not supported by objective evidence and do not in any way indicate the loss of the possibility of fulfilling the contract. And there is no information that such TVs have been discontinued in the case file.
Finally, the rule established by the store is contrary to current legislation, as it infringes on the consumer’s statutory right to receive prepaid goods. Therefore, the case was sent for a new trial to the Court of Appeal.
[ad_2]
Source link
