The seller is liable for the warranty physical defectswhich existed at the time of the passage of danger to the buyer or resulted from the origin of the thing sold at the same time.
The buyer shall have the following warranty rights:
- a request for a price reduction,
- withdrawal,
- request the exchange of things for fault-free purposes,
- a request to remove the defect of things.
Knowledge of the buyer of the defect of things at the time of conclusion or at the time of issue
The seller is exempted from liability under the warranty if the buyer knew of the defect at the time of conclusion of the contract (Art. 557. § 1 kc). On the another hand, erstwhile goods are sold only in terms of the species or things to arise in the future, the seller is exempt from liability under the warranty if the buyer knew of the defect at the time of the issue. This provision shall not apply erstwhile the buyer is simply a consumer (§ 2).
Declaration by the buyer of the price simplification
If the item sold has a defect, the buyer may make a message of price simplification unless the seller immediately and without undue inconvenience to the buyer replaces the defective item with a defect free of defects or removes the defect. This limitation shall not apply if the item has already been mentioned or repaired by the seller or the seller has not satisfied the work to exchange items for defects or to remove defects (Art. 560 §1 kc).
Value of the guarantee
In the judgement of the ultimate Court of 16 December 1998, the mention to Act III CKN 74/98 indicated that the simplification in the price of goods sold pursuant to Article 560(3) of the Code should take into account the cost of the expenditure and the effort essential to bring the goods to an end, by removing the defects, to the efficiency of the intended use. On the another hand, the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 12 May 2017 of Act I ACa 1254/16 allowed the anticipation of additional application of the costs of removing the defect by the buyer to find the value of the defective item.
The essence of the price simplification is to reconstruct the equivalent of the benefits of the parties to the sale contract and not to compensate for any harm suffered by the buyer (e.g. judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 22 January 1997 ref. of IACa 105/96, OSA 1997/3/28, judgement of the SA in Łódź of 22.05.2014 IACa 1588/13, Legalis).
The reasoning that the simplification in the price is automatically the consequence of the purchaser’s costs of the vehicle is incorrect and is contrary to Article 560 §3 kc, which expressly states that the reduced price should stay in specified proportion to the price resulting from the contract in which the value of the item remains to the value of the thing without defects (yes: judgement of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski of 18 December 2020, Act II Ca 483/20).
Declaration by the buyer of the withdrawal
As in the case of a declaration of price reduction, if the item sold is defective, the buyer may make a declaration of withdrawal unless the seller immediately and without undue inconvenience to the buyer mentions the defective item free of defects or the defect removes it. This limitation shall not apply if the item has already been mentioned or repaired by the seller or the seller has not satisfied the work to exchange items for defects or to remove defects (Art. 560 §1 kc). The buyer may not retreat from the contract if the defect is irrelevant (§ 4).
If only any of the goods sold are defective and can be separated from the goods free of defects, without harm to both parties, the buyer's right to retreat from the contract is limited to the defective (Art. 565 kc).
As indicated in the literature, the exercise of the right of withdrawal comes out of court through a unilateral declaration of will. Like the right to lower the price, the right to retreat from the contract is not absolute. The seller may prevent its effective implementation by immediately and without undue inconvenience to the buyer from listing a defective item for defects free or the defect will remove the contracts (yes: comment on Article 560 of the Code, under J. Gudowski, LEX 2017).
Interpretation of the buyer's withdrawal declaration
It should be clear from the content of the message that the buyer's nonsubjective is to retreat from the contract. According to the ruling of the ultimate Court of 25 April 2014 (Event II CSK 415/13), the request to the seller to refund the price paid due to a defect in the goods sold contains an implicable declaration of withdrawal from the sales contract (as well as: Consumer Rights Act civilian Code (Extract) (ed. B. Kaczmarek-Templin, P. Stec, D. Szostek), p. 427).
The ultimate Court, in its judgement of 25 April 2014, Case CSK 415/13 II, held that, in accordance with Article 65(1) and (2) of the Code, the declaration of will must be interpreted as required by the circumstances in which it was lodged, the principles of social coexistence and the established customs. Contracts should alternatively examine the parties' consistent intent and intent of the agreement than trust on its literal wording. If, therefore, the plaintiff in the complaint requested a refund of the full price paid, stating the reason for the request and indicating the defect of the item, it should be treated as withdrawal from the contract.
The message should indicate the drawback of the matter. Since the right of withdrawal is of a legal character (Article 561.2 § 2 ; and so: Consumer Rights Act civilian Code (Extract) (ed. B. Kaczmarek-Templin, P. Stec, D. Szostek), p. 428).
Form of the buyer’s declaration of withdrawal at the guarantee
If the sale contract is concluded in written, documentary or electronic form, withdrawal from it requires documentary form (Article 77(2) k.c.). On the another hand, if it is contained in another peculiar form, it should be stated by letter (Article 77(3)). In another cases, it may take any form. In principle, it should point to its cause, i.e. the defect of things, unless circumstances indicate it (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 1 April 2011, III CSK 220/10, LEX No 1129119).
Effects of the buyer's declaration of withdrawal from the sale contract at the guarantee
Pursuant to Article 494 § 1 k.c., a organization who waives a common agreement shall be obliged to return to the another organization all that it has received under the agreement and the another organization shall accept it. A organization that withdraws from the contract may request not only the reimbursement of what it has demonstrated, but besides the general compensation of the harm resulting from the default.
Derogation from the contract for the sale of movable goods, as the right of the buyer for the warranty of defects, is simply a unilateral legal act which results in the transfer of ownership of that item back to the seller. This conclusion comes from Articles 560(1) and (2) of the Code and is widely accepted in case-law (such as the resolution of the composition of 7 ultimate Court judges of 27 February 2003, III CZP 80/02, OSNC 2003/11/141 and 5 February 2004, III CZP 96/03, OSNC 2004/6/88).
The withdrawal from the sale contract requires the parties to reimburse the benefits obtained (under the contract). The Parties should then return their benefits to each another in accordance with the provisions on withdrawal from the common agreement (yes: Commentary to KC under ed. Osajda 2017). The purchaser should supply the seller with a thing, even if it involves dismantling (this is done at the seller's expense – Article 5612 §1 kc), or supply him with access to the items for checking its condition and confirmation of defects if its transportation is impossible (Article 5612 §2; so also: Consumer Rights Act civilian Code (Extract) ed. B. Kaczmarek-Templin, P. Stec, D. Szostek, p. 428).
The transfer of the ownership of the defective item to the seller shall take place erstwhile it has been informed of the buyer's declaration of will to retreat from the sale contract.
The ultimate Court, in its judgement of 26.11.1997, No. II CKN 458/97, stated that the withdrawal by the buyer from the contract of sale of movable goods due to defects (Article 560(1) kc) results in the transfer of its property back to the seller and the expiry of the quality warrant granted (Article 577(1) kc).
On the another hand, the resolution of the 7 SN judges of 27 February 2003, No. III CZP 80/02 – OSNC 2003, No. 11, item 141, indicated that the withdrawal of the contract resulted in the termination of the ex-tunc sales agreement and the related work to return benefits in kind, meaning that the buyer is obliged to return the acquisition to the seller of the acquired item and that the seller must return the full price to the buyer. As the ultimate Court explained, Repayment of benefits shall include the thing in which it was at the time of the declaration of intent to retreat from the contract., under average operation. The buyer, returning the item, is not obliged to pay the seller for average consumption, which occurred at the correct usage until withdrawal from the contract.
If, as a consequence of the withdrawal from the contract, the parties are to repay each other’s benefits, they shall each right of detention, until the another organization has offered to repay the benefit received or has secured a refund claim (Art. 496 kc – Right to hold the benefit). Therefore, the common benefit is not required until the organization itself has been reimbursed. The Court of First Instance should so make the work to comply with the benefit of the suspect subject to the simultaneous issue of the defective thing by the plaintiff (yes: territory Court of Tczew in its judgement of 24 January 2018. Act No I C 592/17).
On withdrawal from the warranty agreement and the anticipation of valorization of the acquisition price of goods (inflation, increase in the price of a given good) – read here.
Switching things to fault-free or removing defects at the hands
If the item sold has a defect, the buyer may require the exchange of the item to be free of defects or to remove the defect (Art. 561 §1 kc). The seller is obliged to replace the defective thing with a defect free of defects or remove the defect within a reasonable time without undue inconvenience to the buyer (§ 2).
The seller may refuse to make amends to the buyer if it is impossible to bring the defective item into conformity with the contract in a manner chosen by the buyer, or if, compared with the second possible means of compliance with the contract, it would require excessive costs. If the buyer is an entrepreneur, the seller may refuse to exchange items free of defects or to remove defects even if the costs of compensation exceed the price of the goods sold (§ 3).
The seller is obliged to accept a defective item from the buyer in the event of the exchange of goods for defects or withdrawal from the contract (Art. 5614 kc).
Exchange of things into fault-free alternatively of proposing to remove defects
If the buyer is simply a consumer, he may, alternatively of the defect proposed by the seller, request the exchange of goods free of defects or alternatively of the exchange of things, require the removal of defects, unless it is impossible to bring the goods into conformity with the contract as chosen by the buyer, or would require excessive costs compared to the method proposed by the seller (Art. 560 §2 kc).
When assessing the excess costs, account shall be taken of the value of the goods free of defects, the nature and meaning of the defect found, and account shall be taken of the inconvenience to which the buyer would otherwise be subject.
Failure of the seller to respond to the consumer’s request within 14 days
If the consumer has requested the exchange of goods or the removal of defects or has made a message of price reduction, specifying the amount by which the price is to be reduced and the seller has not responded to that request within fourteen days, the claim shall be considered justified (Article 5615 kc).
The majority of commentators indicate that the price simplification message is simply a legal and shaping right (e.g. E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski, Commentary, 2016, Articles 560, Nb 5 and a comment on Article 561 5, Nb 2; also: Jarosław R. Antoniuk., in: Law on Consumer Rights civilian Code (extract) ed. B. Kaczmarek-Templin, P. Stec, D. Szostek, p. 427), but even in the case of silent acceptance of the price reduction, we deal with a message of cognition – and so with designation of the incorrect claim for reimbursement of the marked sum (yes: Jarosław R. Antoniuk, in: Law on Consumer Rights civilian Code (extract) ed. B. Kaczmarek-Templin, P. Stec, D. Szostek, p. 444.; judgement of the territory Court of Lodz – 3rd civilian Division of Appeal dated 20 February 2018 III Ca 1849/17).
Given that the provision of Article 561 5 kc refers to the exception to the rule that those who stay silent, declare nothing, it should be assumed that the conditions for the application of the provision and the consequences set out therein should be interpreted strictly. It must besides be noted that the severe hazard of incorrect subsuming is in fact borne only by the seller; an mistake to the detriment of the buyer (not applying the rule) is not very serious for him (in no way closes the way for exercising his rights). Therefore, the assessment of compliance with the conditions for the application of the provision must be guided by a substantive interpretative directive whereby the doubts should be settled in favour of the seller.
The circumstantial mechanics provided for in Article 561 5 kc shall apply only if the applicable request (the declaration) of the buyer is notified to the buyer in a unambiguous and firm manner. In any case, the essential content should include an indication of the circumstantial defect which is the origin of the request and the request itself (the declaration). In the case of a declaration of price reduction, it must specify precisely the amount by which the price is to be reduced (yes: judgement of the territory Court of Piotrków Trybunalski of 18 December 2020, Act II Ca 483/20).
More about the presumption of a consumer’s claim of inactivity – read here
Contrusion of the sellers preventing the buyer from executing withdrawal
Pursuant to Article 560(1) k.c., in the case of a declaration of withdrawal from the contract, the seller shall be entitled to a counterclaim which may prevent the buyer from executing the withdrawal. This counterright of the seller is to immediately remove the defect, but that the effectiveness of the seller's actions must be assessed utilizing the immediate removal of the defect, not an immediate message of recovery readiness 4 February 2016, I ACa 281/15, LEX No. 1994438).
Provided that even the buyer's claim can constitute a declaration of withdrawal from the sale contract, the seller's counterclaim should be executed immediately after the application has been served.
Disassembly and re-assembly of goods after conversion to defects free or removal of defects
If the defective item has been fitted, the buyer may require the seller to disassemble and re-install after the replacement has been made for defects free or the defect has been removed. In the event that the seller fails to do so, the buyer shall be entitled to do so at the expense and hazard of the seller (Article 561.1 §1 kc). The seller may refuse to disassemble and reinstall if the cost of these operations exceeds the price of the sold item (§ 2).
If the buyer is simply a consumer, he may require the seller to disassemble and re-install, but shall bear any of the related costs exceeding the price of the goods sold or may require the seller to pay part of the dismantling and re-assembly costs, up to the price of the goods sold (§ 3).
The replacement or repair costs shall be borne by the seller. In particular, this includes the cost of dismantling and transportation of goods, labour, materials and re-assembly and commissioning (subject to the abovementioned provisions of Article 561(1)(2) and (3)).
Relationship of the right to retreat from the contract to request price reduction
The choice of the right to retreat from the contract or to request a simplification in price, provided for in Article 560(1) k.c., is of the importance that their simultaneous effective investigation is not possible (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 21 December 2016, I ACa 368/16, OSASH 2017/1/95-125, LEX No 2256962).
Inability to retreat from the contract in the event of materiality of a defect in the goods sold
In accordance with Article 560 §4 kc, withdrawal from the contract by the buyer is not possible erstwhile the defect of the sold item is irrelevant. The burden of proving the immateriality of the defects lies with the suspect (as a seller) (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 24 May 2016, I ACa 899/15, LEX No 2107464).
In assessing the nature of the materiality of a defect within the meaning of Article 560 k.c., the applicable expectations of the purchaser of the things related to its functioning, and not only the objectivised method condition of the thing in the form of its inability to be utilized in general or to a certain degree or worthless in a functional sense, are decisive. Thus, the assessment of whether the defect of the sold item is crucial should be made from the point of view of the buyer, not the usefulness of the item for average usage (yes: judgement of the Szczecin Court of Appeal of 24 May 2016, I ACa 899/15, LEX No 2107464).
In writing, it is pointed out that it is peculiarly crucial to have a defect that could lead to withdrawal from an average contract (not necessarily means that a reasonable buyer) of things. In this respect, it is crucial to measure whether the impact of defects on the utility or aesthetic qualities, and safety-related properties, could, for this reason only, lead the average trading associate to retreat from the contract (yes: comment on Article 560 of the Act, under J. Gudowski, LEX 2017).
The Lublin Court of Appeal in its judgement of 26 November 2019, the mention of Act I ACa 730/18 stressed that the materiality of the defect of the sold item should be assessed on the basis of the content of the contract, and in peculiar by referring to the justified expectations of the buyer in relation to the subject substance of the contract. Thus, the assessment of defects within the meaning of the warranty rules should be made from the point of view of the buyer, alternatively than the usefulness of the item for average use. These expectations of the buyer related to the operation of things are essential here (so: ultimate Court ruling of 29 June 2004, ref. Act II CK 388/04).
According to the doctrine, the burden of proof as to the immateriality of the defect is on the seller. The minute of withdrawal from the contract is valid for the assessment of the immateriality of the defect (yes: W.J. Katner, J. Pisuliński, in: SPP, Vol. 7, 2018, Nb 528 and n.).
Delivering things in parts and warranty
If the sales contract states that the transportation of the goods sold is to take place in parts, and the seller, despite the buyer's request, has not delivered the same quantity of goods free from defects instead, the buyer may besides retreat from the contract as regards the part of the items to be delivered later (Art. 562 kc).
Exclusion or limitation of liability under the warranty
The Parties may extend, restrict or exclude liability under the warranty. If the buyer is simply a consumer, the limitation or exclusion of liability under the warranty shall be permitted only in cases specified in the peculiar provisions (Article 558(1) kc).
The exclusion or limitation of liability for the warranty is ineffective if the seller has deliberately withheld the defect from the buyer (§ 2).
Failure by the entrepreneur of the defective thing with the hands
When selling between traders, buyers lose their warranty rights if they have not examined the items in time and in a manner accepted for specified things and did not immediately notify the seller of the defect, and if the defect came to light only later – if they did not notify the seller immediately after its determination (Art. 563 §1 kc). In order to comply with the above deadline, it is adequate to send a announcement of defect before it expires.
The failure of warranty rights for physical defects of things does not happen despite the failure of the time limits for the buyer to examine the goods or to notify the seller of the defect if the seller knew of the defect or assured the buyer that the defects did not be (Art. 564 kc).
Request for compensation for harm to the acquisition of defective goods
If, due to a physical defect in the goods sold, the buyer has made a declaration of withdrawal from the contract or a lowering of the price, he may claim compensation for the harm which he has suffered due to the fact that he has concluded a contract without knowing that there is simply a defect, even if the harm is due to circumstances for which the seller is not liable, and in peculiar may request reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract, of collecting, transporting, storing and insurance of goods and of the expenses incurred in so far as he has not benefited from those expenses. This is without prejudice to the rules on the work to make good harm under general rules (Article 566(1) kc).
This besides applies erstwhile the goods are supplied free of defects alternatively of the defective or the defect removed by the seller.
Temporary scope of warranty on sale
The seller shall be liable for the warranty if the physical defect is established within 2 years and, erstwhile it comes to property defects, within 5 years of the date of issue of the goods to the buyer. If the buyer is simply a consumer and the subject of the sale is simply a movable item, the liability of the seller may be reduced, not little than 1 year after the date of issue of the item to the buyer (Article 568 §1 kc).
A claim for the removal of a defect or for the exchange of goods sold free of limitation shall be made at the end of the year from the date of the uncovering of the defect. If the buyer is simply a consumer, the limitation period cannot be terminated before the expiry of the time limits set out above (in the first conviction of Article 568(1)) (§ 2). Within these time limits, the buyer may make a declaration of withdrawal from the contract or a simplification in the price due to a defect in the item sold. If the buyer has requested an exchange of items free of defects or deletion of defects, the period for lodging a declaration of withdrawal or a price simplification shall begin erstwhile the time limit for the exchange of goods or removal of the defect has failed.
The time limit under Article 568 § 3 zd 1 kc has so been adjusted to the time limit for the limitation of claims under Article 568 § 2, so in rule it will be an yearly period, and in addition, if the buyer is simply a consumer, the time limit may not end before the expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 568 § 1 kc, and thus fundamentally 2 years. The deadline starts on the day the buyer finds the defect of the thing (yes: Commentary to KC under ed. E. Gniewek).
Where the date of usage of the goods specified by the seller or maker ends 2 years after the date of issue of the goods to the buyer, the seller shall be liable for the physical defects of the goods identified before that date (Article 568(1) kc).
The expiry of the time limit for uncovering a defect does not exclude performance of the warranty rights if the seller has schemingly withheld the defect (Article 568(6) kc).
Ineffective expiry of the period for exchanging items or removing defects
Pursuant to Article 568(3) kc, within the time limits referred to in Article 568(2) (‘A claim for the removal of a defect or for the exchange of a item sold for a period free of limitation shall be made at the end of the year from the date on which the defect is established’; and, in the case of the consumer, the limitation period may not be terminated before the expiry of the time limits referred to in the first conviction of Article 568(1)) the buyer may make a declaration of withdrawal from the contract or a simplification in the price due to the defect of the item sold. If the buyer requested an exchange of goods free of defects or defects, the time limit for lodging a declaration of withdrawal or a price simplification shall begin erstwhile the time limit for the exchange of goods or removal of the defect has failed..
Sneaky concealment of the defect
A sneaky concealment of a defect is the deliberate action of the seller, which aims to make it hard for the buyer to detect a defect. This is, for example, the cover-up or masking of defects, and at least the situation in which the seller, knowing of the existence of a defect, did not inform the buyer about it (yes: resolution of the ultimate Court of 5 July 2020 No. III CZP 39/02, OSN 2003, No. 6, item 78).
Change in legal position and warranty
With effect from 1 January 2021, the provision of Article 556 4 kc which provides that the provisions on guarantees for sales concerning the consumer, with the exception of the second conviction of Article 558(1), apply to natural person concluding an agreement straight related to its business activity (i.e. a single-person trader) where it is apparent from the content of that agreement that it does not have a professional character for that person, resulting in peculiar from the subject of its business activity, made available on the basis of the Central registry and Information on Business Activity.
In accordance with Article 70(1) Laws of 31 July 2019 amending certain laws to reduce regulatory burdens Articles 385 5, 556 4, 556 5 and 576 5 of the civilian Code shall not apply to contracts concluded before 1 January 2021. and to contracts concluded by traders who are natural persons on the basis of which entrepreneurs receive public support within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Act of 27 August 2009 on public finances (Journal of Laws of 2019 item 869, as amended5)), the funds of the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund or another akin measures.
Nature of the limitation period for warranty claims
It is clear from the already established views of the doctrine and jurisprudence of the ultimate Court that the time limit laid down in Article 568(1) of the Code is preclusive and the effect of its expiry results in the expiry of the claim for which it is reserved. It aims to temporarily limit the warranty, as an institution that does not favour certainty of trade and which shapes the liability of the seller for the defects of things sold under very strict rules (yes: resolution of the composition of 7 judges of 19 May1969 III CZP 5/68, OSNCP 1970, item 117 – legal rule; resolution of 5 July 2002, III CZP 39/02. OSNC 2003/6/78).
It is clear in the case-law that it is not entitled to apply Article 5 kc to terms giving emergence to the expiry of powers, since, in the case of specified time-limits, there is no subject-matter law that the court could assess.
This is without uncertainty a binding regulation for the court (here Article 568(1) kc) and of an absolute nature which the court is required to take into account on its own initiative, without the request to wait for the opposing party’s allegation (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 14 March 2006, I ACa 1947/05, Lex No. 196070, judgement of the ultimate Court of 18 May 2004, II CK 270/03, Lex No. 479336 and judgement of the Court of Appeal in Łódź of 8 November 2013, I ACa 645/13, Legalis No. 748973).
A summary of this position is the Resolution of the Composition of the 7 Judges of the ultimate Court of the civilian Chamber of 20 June 2013. (III CZP 2/13, OSNC 2014 No 2, item 10), which indicates that Article 5 kc does not apply to the expiry of the period provided for in Article 568(1) kc.
Nature of the rights with the warranty of the buyer
The normative nature of the rights with the buyer's guarantees was different. In particular, the doubts afraid the normative nature of the powers referred to in Article 560 k.c., namely the right to retreat from the contract and the price reduction. These views have rather uniformly shaped the view that only withdrawal from the contract is simply a formative right and that the remaining mentioned rights with a guarantee, including a request for a simplification in price, are claims. In specified a case, it is entitled to bring an action before the General Court for the intent of carrying out its claim (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Katowice of 26 July 2017, Ref. Act I ACa 168/17).
Guarantee claims and claims against the seller on general terms
In addition to the warranty, in the case of defects of the sold item, it is possible to search claims against the seller on general terms, i.e. according to the rules of Articles 471 et seq., both in addition to simultaneous usage of circumstantial institutions (Article 566 §1 k.c.) and without the usage of these institutions. The anticipation for the buyer to prosecute a compensation claim on general terms does not even destruct the failure of rights by the buyer for defects (e.g. judgement of the ultimate Court of 18 April 2013, III CSK 243/12 LEX No 1353200, judgement of the Court of Appeal of 26 January 2016 in £ I ACa 959/15, LEX No 2000518, judgement of the Court of Appeal of Białystok of 10 November 2011, I ACa 496/11, OSAB 2011/4/25-30).
Pursuant to Article 363(1) of the Code, compensation for harm should be made, according to the choice of the victim, either by the restoration of the erstwhile condition or by the payment of an appropriate monetary sum. However, if it is impossible to reconstruct the former, or if it involves excessive difficulties or costs for the obliged person, the injured person's claim is limited to money. On the another hand, pursuant to Article 363(2) k.c., if compensation is to be recovered in money, the amount of compensation should be fixed at prices on the date of the compensation, unless peculiar circumstances require that prices existing at another time be taken as a basis.
At this point, the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 3 August 2017 in Case I ACa 768/16, which states that the seller’s provision of a defective item besides constitutes an improper performance of the work which may consequence in the debtor’s liability under Articles 471 et seq. In specified a case, it is not essential for the buyer to keep the circumstantial acts of care required for the enforcement of the rights of guarantee, but the applicant for compensation is obliged to show (it is the burden of proof) the conditions of compensation, i.e.
- the circumstances of default or misexecution,
- damage, including its amount,
- the average causal link between the failure or inadequate performance of the debtor's work and the harm to the creditor.
The debtor may, in turn, defend himself on the ground that the failure to execute or to execute the work is simply a consequence of circumstances for which he is not liable.
Receipts and limitation of a claim for damages under general rules (Article 471 of the Code) shall be determined by applying the rules laid down in Article 455 of the Code in Article 120(1) of the Code. The period of limitation of the claim for payment of damages for default or breach of the work shall begin with the occurrence of the harm which is attributable to the event which caused the harm (resolution of 22 November 2013, III CZP 72/13, Legalis). The period of limitation of the claim for damages for improper performance of the contract shall begin on the date on which the injury resulting from the breach of the undertaking should be corrected if the creditor calls on the debtor to comply with the work at the earliest possible time. At that moment, in the light of the disposition of the second conviction of Article 120(1) of the Code, the creditor shall be given a hypothetical chance to take action to bring the claim into due condition.
Transfer of warrant rights
The sale of goods by the buyer does not consequence in a transfer to the buyer of the warranty rights for physical defects of things; however, the buyer may transfer to the buyer the power to request a simplification in the price, to remove the defect or to supply the item free of defects (yes: resolution of the ultimate Court (7) of 5 February 2004, act No. III CZP 96/03, OSN 2004, No. 6, item 88).
On physical defects of things – read here
On warranty for property defects – read here
