Marble slabs: Who pays the rehabilitation?

Do you get deficient or too little goods? The contractor must pay for the costs.

In the event that a contractor (seller) delivers to the consumer a defective item, the contractor shall – in the course of an exchange - remove it at his own expense and install the defect-free thing or replace these costs. Even in case of high installation costs, he cannot refuse this remedy because of the disproportion of costs.

The dispute parties concluded a purchase agreement for the supply of marble tiles. As the defendant delivered too little for the total surface area, the external surface area of the claimant’s house could not be laid in uniform optics. A subsequent delivery with a completely identical structure is not possible. The additional delivery, with which the claimant’s publisher completed the surface area, differs visually.

The lower courts adjudicated EUR 120.00 on renovation costs for the removal of the previous covering and the laying of the entire surface area with marble tiles in a uniform optics.

Against this, the Supreme Court considered that the expense for restructuring the aesthetic defect in the form of complete renewal was disproportionately high because this amounts the multiple value of the goods. In accordance with the binding interpretation of the Consumer Sales Directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union, article 932 paragraph 4 of the ABGB shall be interpreted as being in conformity with the directive in such a way that although the contractor must be willing to exchange even at high costs – however, by limiting his contribution to the amount, which „value the consumer would have if it were in accordance with the contract and the importance of non-conformity“ is appropriate. Since more findings are missing, the Supreme Court has referred the case for supplementary proceedings to the Court of First Instance.

Source: Supreme Court