The warrant means that the seller is liable to the buyer if the item sold has a physical or legal defect (Article 556 kc).
Guarantee features
The basic feature of the seller's liability for the defects of the sold item is to tighten it up in relation to the general principles relating to the improper performance of the undertaking. The liability of the seller is absolute and objective. It is based on the rule of risk, so it burdens the seller independently of his own responsibility or the responsibility of the individual he used.
The seller responds on the basis of the warranty regardless of whether he caused the defect, whether he knew about it and whether he could find out. In order to assert the liability of the seller under the warranty rules, the buyer is not obliged to show the harm suffered, the responsibility of the seller, or the causal link in any form. This is an absolute liability, the adequate condition of which is to establish that the goods sold to the buyer show the characteristics of the legal relation in question as defective. (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 5 March 2010, CNP No IV 76/09, Legalis No 369522; ultimate Court judgement of 28 November 2007, CNP No V 124/07, Legalis No 18195 and Zambrowa territory Court judgement of 5 September 2019. Reference to Act I C 21/19).
Absolute nature of liability under the warranty
It has repeatedly been stressed in the case-law that the statutory liability of the seller for the defects of the sold thing is absolute, i.e. that the seller cannot be released from it, it is simply a burden on him whether he has caused the defect of the thing, or whether he is guilty in that regard, or even whether he knew or could have known that the sold thing was defective; the deficiency of knowledge, even elementary, or even suspicion, does not in any way affect the exclusion of work or its limitation (so: judgement of the Bialystok Court of Appeal of 4 March 2015, I ACa 372/14, Lex 1665751).
The liability of the seller for the warranty excludes only cognition of the defect, whatever the source. As a result, the seller is besides liable for specified disadvantages as the buyer could see erstwhile he added simple care.
The Court of Appeal in Warsaw in its judgement of 3 July 2019. No. VII AGa 1350/18 stated that recipe Article 557 k.c. does not impose on the buyer the work of careful behaviour erstwhile getting to know the thing. So it is not adequate to admit that he could and should have noticed the defect. The view that the purchaser knows of the defect erstwhile he did not announcement it at the time of the conclusion of the contract due to his own negligence is not based on the provisions of the civilian Code, as they deficiency the reliance of liability on the sales warranty on whether the defect is public.
As a result, the seller is besides liable for specified defects as the buyer He could see with a simple care. (yes: comment on Art. 557 k.c. M. Gutowski (ed.), civilian Code. Volume II. Commentary, Wyd. 2, Warszawa 2019, Legalis; K. Osajda (ed.), civilian Code. Commentary, Issues 22, 2019, Legalis; M. Załucki (ed.) civilian Code. Commentary, Wyd. 1, Warszawa 2019, Legalis; R. Trzaskowski (in:) J. Gudowski (ed.) civilian Code. Commentary, WKP 2017, Lex). The views of literature go hand in hand with the case law of the ultimate Court, where, for example, it was pointed out in the judgement of 16 February 2005 that the exemption from liability provided for in Article 557 k.c. applies only to cases where the purchaser knew of the defect, and it was not adequate to admit that he could and should have noticed the defect (IV CK 546/04, LEX No 1111001).
The fact that the seller is not a ‘perpetrator’ of defects besides does not exclude his responsibility. Pursuant to Article 556(1) k.c., the seller is liable to the buyer if the item sold has a defect reducing its value or usefulness by reason of the intent in the contract identified either by circumstances or by the destination of the goods, if the item does not have the characteristics which the buyer has guaranteed to exist, or if the item was issued to the buyer in an incomplete state (the warranty for physical defects).
As provided for in Article 556(1) and following, the liability of the seller for the physical defects of the goods is so absolute liability, of which adequate factual basis is defect of things. The seller cannot be released from it, it is independent of fault, it is chargeable to him whether or not he has caused the defect of the thing, whether or not he has even seen or could have known that the item sold is defective (yes: judgement of the ultimate Court of 5 March 2010, IV CNP 76/09, LEX No 852575; judgement of the Court of Appeal of Lublin of 25 November 1998, I ACa 351/98, Appeals- or 1999/2/3; judgement of the Court of Appeal of Katowice of 5 March 2009, V ACa 484/08, LEX No 508538).
Physical defect of things – definition
Pursuant to Article 556(1) kc, a physical defect is simply a non-compliance of the goods sold with the contract. In particular, a sale shall be incompatible with the contract if:
- there is no jurisdiction that specified a thing should have by reason of the intent in the contract identified either by circumstances or by destination;
- there are no characteristics the seller has provided to the buyer, including a example or a design;
- not suitable for the intent which the buyer informed the seller erstwhile the contract was concluded and the seller did not rise any objection as to its intended purpose;
- was issued to the buyer in an incomplete state.
If the buyer is simply a consumer, the public assurances of the maker or his typical shall be treated as being equivalent to that of the seller, the individual who places the item on the marketplace for his business activity and the individual who, by placing his name, trade mark or another distinguishing mark on the goods sold, is presented as the maker (Article 556(1) §2 kc).
Deficiencies applicable and irrelevant to the warranty
As regards the very concept of “contrary” which must be proven by the buyer, it should be noted that – as the ultimate Court noted, the word includes this concept significant and non-essential defects and recoverable and indelible, although these divisions cross, there may be crucial and irrelevant defects both clear and indelible, but the statutory classification of defects, contained in the warranty rules for physical defects, refers to this institution and is not mandatory (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 9 October 2003 No. I CK 137/12, Lex No. 148636).
Also, ‘substantiality’ and ‘insubstantiality’ of a defect of a thing is irrelevant for the specified anticipation of exercising the rights deriving from the warranty, although it is not irrelevant for the way the buyer executes the warranty rights (in accordance with Article 560 §4 kc the buyer cannot retreat from the contract if the defect is irrelevant*). The assessment of the character of the defect affecting a peculiar thing must be preceded by an in-depth analysis of both this thing and another things that are in circulation. For each item of sale, the consequence of the examination may be rather different (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 8 May 2003, II CKN 66/01, LEX No 121712; ultimate Court judgement of 2004, II CK 388/03, Republic of 2004, No 153, p. C2).
Breaking down the faults of public and hidden things a guarantee
The provisions of the civilian Code do not make liability dependent on the warranty of sales on whether the defect is of a public nature. Although in practice the concept of a public defect has survived the Code of Obligations (Article 323 of the Code of Conduct) (and thus the other of its concept of a hidden defect), there is no uncertainty that the liability of the sales bonds regulated in the civilian Code does not depend on the nature of the defect. Under Article 557 of the C.C., In order to relieve the seller of liability with the warranty, the buyer must know of the defect and not be investigated the question whether he should have known, for example, due to the fact that the defect of things was public.
It follows that, under the civilian Code, it is not applicable to divide into public and hidden defects, and the liability for the sales bonds is independent of the division into these defects (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 29 June 2000). Act No V CKN 66/00, Lex No. 52580).
Moreover, for the seller's exemption from liability for the warranty of defects, it is not adequate that the buyer could – with due care the defect was noted. The seller is besides liable for public defects if they were not known to the buyer. Art. 354 k.c. besides includes the work of the seller's loyalty to the buyer, who should in peculiar appear in the presentation of the another party, which is not an expert in a given field, the actual state of the sold thing (so: The Court of Appeal in Poznań in its judgement of 26 January 1994, I Acr 640/94, 1994, No 8, item 139).
The warranty and the defect of the utilized thing
According to the case law the power of the buyer to claim claims under the warranty is not limited to those situations where the subject of the sale contract is new. The liability of the seller for the physical defects of the goods sold besides applies to the goods used. However, it does not include liability for specified a simplification in the value or usefulness of things as a average consequence of its appropriate use. There is no basis for taking work for the defects of things related to the end of use.
It must be taken into account that even the most correct operation of things always reduces its value and usefulness. The purchaser of the goods utilized is aware of what the lower price equivalent is. He should besides be aware, erstwhile entering into specified transactions, of the risks associated with the acquisition of a utilized item (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 19 November 1973, II CR 512/73, OSNCP 1974, No 10, item 169; ultimate Court judgement of 21 March 1977, III CZP 11/77, OSNC 1977, No 8, item 132; ultimate Court judgement of 13 March 1981, III CRN 31/81, OSN 1981, No 11, item 219).
On the another hand, on the another hand, the fact that the object of the transaction is simply a thing to be utilized is hard to make the buyer aware of its disadvantages, especially since, as has already been mentioned, it is not, in principle, subject to a legal work to be vigilant or to examine the substance in particular. The burden of proof for the cognition of the defect by the buyer at the time of conclusion of the contract shall be borne by the seller. Although the evidence for the seller appears in the situation of selling a certain item as incomplete, in order for the seller to benefit from the said facilitation, the defect of the item must be clearly indicated at the time of the performance (yes: Cz. Żuławska (in:) G. Bieniek, Commentary, t. II, 2007, p. 56).
Invalid installation and commissioning by the seller and physical defect
The item sold has a physical defect besides in case of incorrect installation and commissioning, if these operations have been performed by the seller or a 3rd organization for which the seller is responsible, or by the buyer who has followed the instructions received from the seller (Article 556 1 §3 kc).
The literature emphasizes that the form of a physical defect is besides incorrect installation And moving things. Mounting and activating things means putting its parts into a functional whole, or its essential attachment or connection to another object. It is, however, the act which enables the usage of the acquired goods in accordance with its usual or peculiar purpose. Failure of these activities is inability or hindering the average usage of the goods according to the intent for which it was acquired (yes: Marlena Pecina in: Consumer Sales Act. Commentary, p. 151, and E. Habrin-Motava in: Non-compliance of consumer goods with consumer sales agreement, pp. 98–99).
Contrary to the literal wording of the provision (which suggests that any incorrect installation and release of the goods carried out under the sales contract should be declared incompatible with the contract), this situation should, by functional interpretation, be referred to the conditions of conformity of the goods with the contract resulting from Article 4(2) or (3). Act on peculiar Conditions for Consumer Sales and amending the civilian Code. Only after the uncovering of at least 1 of these conditions should it be considered that the conditions for liability for non-compliance with the contract have been fulfilled (yes: E. Habryn-Motawska, Non-compliance of consumer goods with the consumer sales contract, p. 98).
Article 4(2) of the Law on peculiar Conditions for Consumer Sales and amending the civilian Code provided that: in the event of an individual agreement on the characteristics of consumer goods, it is presumed to be in conformity with the contract, if it corresponds to the description given by the seller or has characteristics shown to the buyer of the example or model, and if it is suitable for the intent specified by the buyer at the conclusion of the contract, unless the seller has raised objections to specified use. Article 4(3) of the Act, on the another hand, states that In cases not covered by paragraph 2, consumer goods are presumed to be in conformity with the contract if they are suitable for the intent for which specified goods are usually utilized and where their properties correspond to the characteristics of specified goods. The same presumption shall be accepted where the goods correspond to the expectations of specified goods, based on the public assurances of the seller, the maker or his representative; in particular, the assurances expressed in the labelling of the goods or advertising relating to the characteristics of the goods, including the period within which the goods are to be retained, shall be taken into account.
Circumstances relating to the incorrect installation or release of the goods should be linked to the unusability of the goods for the average intent or indicated by the buyer. As a result, in the event of installation irregularities, it is adequate to mention to the conditions of 4(2) and (3) ponds with circumstantial conditions for consumer sales and to amend the civilian Code to measure to what degree incorrect installation affects the suitability of the goods to a average or specified purpose.
Thus, it cannot be excluded that, despite the appropriate quality of the subject-matter of the sale, its incorrect installation will justify liability for non-compliance with the contract (E. Habryn-Motawska in: Non-compliance of consumer goods with the contract of consumer sales).
The Gdańsk-South territory Court of Gdańsk in its judgement of 25 February 2020. Act IX C 324/18 indicated that the item sold – wooden floor, mounted in a way invalid, contrary to art, has a physical defect within the meaning of Article 556 1 § 3 k.c.
The territory Court of Krakow in its judgement of 31 January 2014. Act No II Ca 1834/13, under the then applicable law of 27 July 2002 on peculiar conditions for consumer sales and amending the civilian Code, he pointed out that the fact that the defendant’s windowwork installed by the organization was of good quality does not mean that the goods were not in conformity with the contract. As the territory Court rightly pointed out, the provision of Article 6 of the Act of 27 July 2002 on peculiar Conditions for Consumer Sales and amending the civilian Code extends the notion of non-compliance with the Agreement on Irregularities in the Installation and Launch of the Goods. This regulation is sometimes referred to as a "assembly clause" and involves the presence of goods which, in order to guarantee their full usefulness, require preparatory action, usually to combine them with the already existing environment infrastructure in which they are to operate.
Failure of these activities is either inability or hindering the average usage of the goods, according to the intent for which it was acquired. Circumstances relating to the incorrect installation or release of the goods should be linked to the unusability of the goods for the average intent or indicated by the buyer.
In the present case, the territory Court noted that the evidence from the expert’s opinion leaves no uncertainty that there was a flaw in the size and later besides the installation of the windows ordered by the plaintiff. This results in the deficiency of the anticipation of utilizing the product in a widely accepted manner and results in a deterioration of the technical, aesthetic and functional conditions of the plaintiff's apartment, which is clearly stated by the expert and results from the accompanying photos. Therefore, it is not possible to accept that the goods supplied and mounted by the defendant's organization are compatible with the connecting parties to the contract.
In a situation where the assembly or commissioning of things is impossible for reasons straight related to the goods themselves (e.g. deficiency of adequate fittings, inappropriate size, etc.), this condition should be classified as non-compliance with the contract (so: J. Brush, Consumer Sales, p. 67).
Kwapis Krystyna (in: Act on peculiar Conditions of Consumer Sales. Comments.) indicates that the seller is liable for the goods which are not in conformity with the contract as a consequence of the failure of the assembly, that is to say, the assembly and commissioning, if any of these activities were part of the sale contract and were to be carried out by the seller or the individual for whom the seller is responsible. specified a service may not be treated as a separate legal relationship, but 1 of the terms of the sales contract. Therefore, if the seller offers a service of assembly of consumer goods, but the buyer has the choice left to usage this service, it is not treated as an component of the sales contract regulated by the said provision. Any liability of the seller for incorrect installation should be dealt with under the provisions of the civilian Code concerning improper performance of the undertaking. It should besides be noted that it can be concluded from the wording of Article 6 that the seller is liable, provided that the failure of assembly and commissioning occurs together, the author considers that it is appropriate to extend the explanation here and to presume that the liability of the seller will be due to the irregularity of assembly or malfunction of the commissioning of consumer goods.
Definition of the consumer under warranty
A natural individual shall be considered as a consumer. with the entrepreneur legal activity not straight related to its economical or professional activity (Article 22 1 kc). However, Article 556 4 kc indicates that the consumer provisions contained in the warrant section, with the exception of the second conviction of Article 558(1) (in the words: If the buyer is simply a consumer, the regulation or exclusion of liability under the warranty is permissible only in the cases specified in the peculiar provisions), shall apply to a natural individual who has a contract straight related to his or her business activity, where it is apparent from the content of that contract that he or she is not of a professional nature, arising in peculiar from the subject of his or her business activity, made available on the basis of the Central Registration and Business Activity Information provisions.
Finding a physical defect of the thing before the end of the year from the date of issue of the thing
If the buyer is simply a consumer and a physical defect has been established before the end of the year following the date of issue of the sold item, the defect or its origin shall be presumed to have existed at the time of the passage of danger to the buyer (Art. 556 2 kc).
Exclusion of liability under warranty to the buyer
Pursuant to Article 556 5 kc, where applicable buyer does not apply to a natural individual containing contract straight related to its economical activity, where it is apparent from the content of that agreement that it does not have a professional character for that person, arising in peculiar from the subject substance of its economical activity, made available on the basis of the provisions on Central Registration and Information on economical Activity, the following provisions:
- 563 kc in content: erstwhile 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.
- 567 §2 kc in the text: In the case of sales between traders, the buyer is entitled and, where the interests of the seller so require, the seller must sale the item with due care if there is simply a danger of deterioration.
Modification of warranty liability
The provisions of the civilian Code concerning liability under the warranty, including the defects of the work, are fundamentally iuris dispositivi. In Article 558 § 1 k.c., the legislator allows modifications to the warranty government relating to all aspects of this liability, including the subject-matter conditions (responsible defects), the subject-matter (concerning both the contracting authority and the contractor), the scope of the temporal responsibility, the powers of the contracting authority and the relation between them (in this order of implementation) and the consequences of their implementation (so: the Court of Appeal in Białystok in its judgement of 18 January 2018. Act No I AGa 21/18).
Detection of defects in things – concept
Accordingly, the judicature states that the detection of a defect of a thing the plan and characteristics of which are not known to a user who does not have peculiar information shall be made, within the meaning of Article 563 k.c. (in the words: erstwhile selling between traders, the buyer loses his warranty rights if he has not examined the items in time and in a manner accepted by specified things and has not immediately notified the seller of the defect, and in the event that the defect came to light only later – if he did not notify the seller immediately after its determination) – when the buyer yet found that the acquired item was not suitable for usage as intended.
At that time, it is usually only at the time of proceeding the expert’s expert’s expertise that the buyer can be credited with “detection of defect” (yes: ultimate Court judgments of 26 August 2004, I CK 91/04, OSNC 2005/7-8/140, and 14 February 1967, I CR 521/66, OSNC 1967/9/164).
Sneaky concealment of defects of things by the seller
The exclusion or limitation of liability under the warranty is ineffective if the seller has slyly withheld the defect from the buyer (Art. 558 §2 kc).
The notion of "subtle concealment of defects" is commonly understood to mean intentional concealment of defects, which is intended to make it hard for the buyer to detect defects. specified behaviour should be regarded as concealing or masking defects, and at least the situation in which the seller, knowing of the existence of a defect, did not inform the buyer of it (yes: judgments of the ultimate Court of 21 June 2002, V CKN 1070/00, OSNC 2003/6/88, and of 1 April 2003, II CKN 1382/00, LEX No 78819).
Similarly, the ultimate Court stated in its judgement of 1 April 2003, No. II of CKN 1382/00, Legalis stating that the insidious concealment of a defect, within the meaning of Article 558(2) of the Code, is specified a deliberate act of the seller, which aims to impede the detection of a defect by the buyer. This will so be, for example, the deliberate concealment or masking of defects (such as the ultimate Court judgement of 21 June 2002, V CKN 1070/00, OSNC 2003, No 6, item 88).
The basic reason for insidious secrecy is the seller's cognition of the existence of a defect (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 27 November 2003, I CK 267/00, non-publ.).
However, it is stressed in the case-law that it is not adequate to accept the insidious concealment of a defect and not to inform the buyer. A sneaky concealment requires the deliberate action of the seller, which may manifest itself in masking the defect or giving the buyer assurance that the thing is not defective (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 05 January 2005, II CK 330/04, OSNC 2005, No 12, item 215; ultimate Court judgement of 07 November 2013, V CSK 579/12, OSNC – Additional study 2014, No A, item 38).
The concept of “disclosure” already implies in itself the existence on the side of a individual who conceals the right amount of bad faith. In this context, the usage by the legislator of the word "subtlely" is primarily aimed at emphasizing the peculiar strength of this bad religion (R. O., Closure of the defect, p. 50).
The trick is erstwhile the seller deliberately conceals the defect to make it hard for the buyer to detect it. In specified a case, the buyer shall not lose the warranty rights despite the expiry of the time limit to establish the defect. As a result, the buyer will be able to usage the warranty rules for defects Even after many yearsIf the defect is revealed insidiously concealed by the seller. The burden of proof in this respect lies with the buyer (yes: Comment. Article 568 KC ed. Załucki 2020, ed. 2/Kubiak-Cyrul).
Legal defect – definition
The seller shall be liable to the buyer if the item sold is owned by a 3rd organization or if it is bound by the law of a 3rd organization and if the regulation in usage or disposition is due to the decision or decision of the competent authority. In the event of a sale, the seller is besides liable for the existence of the law (legal defect) (Article 556 3 kc).
Release of the seller from liability under the warranty
The seller shall be exempt from liability under the warranty if the buyer was aware of the defect at the time the contract was concluded (Art. 557 § 1 kc).
When the subject of the sale is only marked as to the species or things to arise in the future, the seller is exempted 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).
The seller shall not be liable to the buyer who is the consumer for the fact that the goods sold do not have the characteristics of public assurances (as referred to in Article 556(1)(2)) if those assurances were not known or, in a reasonable assessment, could not know or could not influence the buyer's decision to conclude the sale contract, or if their content was corrected before the conclusion of the sale contract (§ 3).
Extension, limitation or exclusion of liability under the warranty
The Parties may extend, restrict or exclude liability under the warranty. If the buyer is simply a consumer, the regulation or exclusion of liability under the warranty shall be permitted only in the cases specified in the peculiar provisions (Article 558(1)).
The existence of physical defects of things at the time of the danger to the buyer
The seller is liable for the warranty of physical defects that 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 (Art. 559 kc).
Where there is no consumer, Article 556 shall not apply. 2 k.c. and the resulting presumption that the defect existed at the time of the passage of danger to the buyer.
Extension of warranty duration
Article 558(1) of the civilian Code provides that the parties may extend, restrict or exclude liability under the warranty. Where the buyer is simply a consumer, the regulation or exclusion of liability under the warranty shall be permitted only in cases specified in the circumstantial provisions.
The ultimate Court — civilian Chamber in its judgement of 5 August 2005 in Case II CK 28/2005 indicated that the judgement provided for in Article 568 kc the expiry of the warranty rights may be extended by a contract of the parties. The Court of First Instance pointed out that if Article 568 kc did not let the extension of the terms of the guarantee, then between the warrant and the warrant which execute the same functions, there would be an inexplicable difference; with the guarantee, the parties may find the liability over a year and, with the guarantee, this is excluded. Thus, even if the seller wanted to establish his responsibility, in the event that the goods sold prove defective, over a year, it should be considered that he can only do so by granting a warrant alternatively than prolonging the liability for the warranty. This explanation of Article 568 kc is incompatible with Article 558 kc.
Guarantee and rights under the guarantee
The purchaser may exercise warranty rights for physical defects of the thing regardless of the rights deriving from the warrant (Article 579. § 1 kc).
The exercise of the rights from the warrant does not affect the liability of the seller under the warranty (§ 2). However, if the buyer exercises the rights from the guarantee, the period for exercising the rights under the warranty shall be suspended from the date of notification of the defect to the seller. That period shall run from the date of refusal by the guarantor of the performance of the obligations arising from the warrant or the unsuccessful expiry of the time period for its performance (§ 3).
Guarantee and contractual liability for non-execution
The usage of the warranty does not exclude the prosecution of another claims arising from the contract concluded, in peculiar damages claims. There is no reason why a buyer who does not retreat from the contract or request a simplification in the price may make a claim for improper performance of the contract. It may even be the same as, among another things, the warrant provisions, as the differences between them relate mainly to a broader catalogue of claims, a broader scope of liability (in the case of a guarantee, even showing that the harm is the consequence of circumstances for which the seller is not liable, does not exclude his liability within the limits of a negative contractual interest) and the time erstwhile they can be obtained and the effects of the expiry of the time limit (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal of Katowice in Case I ACa 421/11, LEX No 1102908).
The failure of warranty rights (e.g. due to failure to comply with the time limits of Article 563 §1 k.c. – the failure to analyse things at a given time and Article 568 §1 kc – the time limit for the exercise of rights with the warrants) does not deprive the buyer of the anticipation to compensate for the failure to execute the contract on the basis of another titles. Regardless of the rights conferred on the buyer by the guarantee, he may, on general terms, claim compensation for harm caused by defects in things (Article 471 k.c.). This is the harm resulting from the circumstances for which the seller is responsible. The general principles of contractual liability apply (Articles 471-474 k.c.).
The investigation of full compensation for harm resulting from a defect in things shall not be subject to the exercise of warranty rights by the buyer. It is not subject to its regime, which means that the purchaser may besides claim damages after the failure of rights under the warranty (yes: judgement of the ultimate Court of 4 January 1979, II CR 1/79, LEX No 8160; judgement of the ultimate Court of 6 March 1998, III CKN 405/97, LEX No 484676; judgement of the Court of Appeal of Rzeszów of 9 April 2008, I ACa 65/11, LEX No 1213836; judgement of the Court of Appeal of Warsaw of 23 January 2008, VI ACa 1348/06, LEX No 446213).
However, in specified a case, it is not adequate to show that the item issued to the buyer was affected by defects, as is the case in the case of protection based on warranty. In specified a situation, it is essential to show by the buyer the general conditions for compensation under Article 471 (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 21 February 2013). Act mention I ACa 732/12.
This means that for the effective investigation of the claim for compensation, the buyer is required to show that the purchased item has defects, that it has suffered harm and that there is simply a average causal link between the defect and the injury.
It must be remembered that the seller is liable under Article 471 k.c. not for the defects themselves, but for the harm caused by the defective performance of the contract by releasing a defective item to the buyer. The fact that the seller has failed to comply with the obligation, i.e. the issue of a defective item, results in the buyer having suffered injury, which is, first of all, expressed in the difference between the amount of the price paid to the seller, which is equivalent to the defective item of sale and the value of the defective item at the time of its issue to the purchasers (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 8 December 2005, II CK 291/05, LEX No 188547). The compensation due to the claimant would, by analogy, consist of specified a difference in price resulting from a difference in the value of the goods (e.g. the premises) in an inefficient and defective condition and established by a judicial expert.
However, pursuant to Article 471 k.c. in fine, sellers may exclude their contractual liability if they prove that improper performance of the undertaking is due to circumstances for which they are not liable. The debtor shall be liable for failing to exercise due diligence, i.e. the care mostly required in the relations of a given kind (Article 472 k.c., Article 355 §1 k.c.).
The fact that the seller is not liable cannot be accepted as having not been the contractor of the thing has not affected the improvement of his faults. The question of the seller’s responsibility for the harm suffered by the buyer due to the defect of the sold item is crucial. This, on the another hand, may manifest itself in failure to supply complete and detailed information on existing defects before the transaction is completed.
Guarantee and compensation of damage
If, due to a physical defect in the goods sold, the buyer has made a declaration of withdrawal from the contract or a simplification in the price, he may request compensation of damage, which he has suffered due to the fact that he has concluded a contract without knowing of the existence of a defect, even though the harm is due to circumstances for which the seller is not liable, and in peculiar may claim reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract, of collecting, transporting, storing and insureing the goods, and of the reimbursement of the expenditure 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 provision shall apply mutatis mutandis if the goods are supplied free of defects alternatively of the defective or the defect removed by the seller.
The compensation claim referred to in Article 566(1) shall not be a guarantee. This is simply a separate contractual liability claim, which can be declared as a self-claim (Art. 471 k.c.) or accompanying exercise of rights with a warrant (Art. 566 §1 k.c. in conjunction with Art. 471 k.c.) (Yes: Court of Appeal in Białystok in Case I ACa 496/11 OSAB 2011/4/25-30).
On the another hand, the question of the calculation of the amount due for damages under Article 566(1) of the Code explained the ultimate Court in its judgement of 8 December 2005 in Case II CK 291/05 (LEX 188547), stating that the seller is liable under Article 471 k.c. not for defects but for harm caused by a defect resulting from an improper performance of the contract consisting in the issue of a defective thing to the buyer. This injury is expressed by the difference between the amount of the price paid to the seller, which is equivalent to the unfailing object of the sale, and the value of the defective item at the time of its issue to the buyer.
The exclusion of liability under Article 471 k.c. is possible if it is demonstrated by the individual performing the non-monetary benefit that the undue execution of the work is the consequence of circumstances for which he is not liable. It should so be pointed out that the method of calculating the injury is akin to that provided for in Article 560 §1 k.c. of the calculation of the simplification of the selling price (yes: judgement of the Court of Justice of Siedlce, 20 September 2014, act No I C 485/12).
Reimbursement of the costs of private remuneration of the expert at the guarantee
As regards the claim for compensation expressed in the costs of the private valuer’s remuneration incurred by the buyer, it is based on Article 566(1) of the Code according to which, if due to a physical defect in the goods sold, the buyer withdraws from the contract or requests a price reductionit may require compensation for harm caused by a defect, Even if the harm is due to circumstances for which the seller is not responsible.
In the second case, the buyer may require only compensation for harm suffered by the fact that he has concluded the contract without being aware of the existence of a defect; in particular, he may request reimbursement of the costs of concluding the contract, of collecting, transporting, storing and insureing the goods and of the expenses incurred in so far as he has not benefited from those expenses.
So in the case of warranty even demonstrating that injury is due to circumstances, for which the seller is not responsible, does not exclude his liability within the limits of a negative contractual interest. The negative contractual interest shall be determined by the injury resulting from the failure to accomplish the intended contract. The harm within the limits of a negative contractual interest so covers mainly the expenditure incurred for its conclusion, with the debtor's compensation work limited to the consequences which at the time of the conclusion of the contract were foreseeable in the average course of things and those which could reasonably have been foreseen on the basis of cognition of the circumstantial circumstances of the case.
Article 471 k.c. covers 2 facts:
- where the injury is due to circumstances for which the seller is responsible.
- when he has successfully exculpated, showing that the injury is due to circumstances for which the seller is not responsible.
In the first situation, there do not appear to be any limitation on the compensation that the seller can claim from the injured buyer.
In the second case, the injured buyer is entitled to compensation (with a warrant regime*)Although his investigation was based on the general expression of liability of the debtor, he would be deprived of that possibility. By granting him the right to compensation, Article 566(1) point (2) (c) However, it limits its size to the reimbursement of the expenses it has incurred as a consequence of entering into a contract, resulting in the object of the benefit as a last hotel being affected by a physical defect.
Therefore, in both cases with Article 566(1) of the Act, the compensation payable to the purchasers covers those inputs which they incurred as a consequence of the conclusion of a sales contract, the object of which was affected by a physical defect. It is clear that this kind of cost is the expenditure of the purchasers on the private expert’s expertise, by which they gained expertise in the existence and kind of defects in the building, which allowed them to apply for warranty rights (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 21 February 2013). Act I ACa 732/12).
The burden of proof on liability under the warranty
If the plaintiff invokes the existence of a defect and the suspect denies it, the procedural work of the plaintiff resulting from Article 6(c) shall be to prove that circumstance. On the 1 hand, the burden of proving that the above-mentioned provision is to be understood as a burden on the parties to the process of convincing the court of the correctness of their claims and, on the another hand, the consequences of failing to fulfil that work or its ineffectiveness. This consequence is usually the adverse result for the party.
The explanation of the word ‘fact’ must lead to a link between it and legal facts only. It is only with specified facts that the standards of substantive law have certain legal consequences in their hypotheses (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 7 November 2007, No. II CSK 293/07). Furthermore, the discovery of the fact by the court is limited in rule to the carrying out of the evidence submitted by the parties, for they bear the burden of proof (Article 6). The rule of material fact cannot overturn the adversariality of the process, since the burden of indicating the essential evidence rests primarily on the procedural pages. Therefore, a organization who has not provided adequate evidence to support its claims bears the hazard of a disfavorable decision.
Guarantee for another legal events than the sale contract:
Guarantee for defects in a work contract
By the contract for the contract-taking work, the contracting authority undertakes to carry out the designated work and the contracting authority pays the remuneration (Article 627 kc).
The warranty rules for sales shall apply mutatis mutandis to liability for defects of the work. The liability of the recipient of the contract is excluded if the defect of the work is due to the material supplied by the contracting authority (Article 638(1) kc).
Guarantee and dangerous product
Who manufactures a dangerous product in the field of his business (manufacturer) is liable for the harm caused to anyone by that product (Art. 449.1 kc). The product means moving, even if it is connected to another thing. Animals and electricity are besides considered as a product (§ 2).
A dangerous product is simply a safety-free product that can be expected, taking into account the average usage of the product. Whether the product is safe determines the circumstances at the time it is placed on the market, especially the way it is presented on the marketplace and given to the consumer (§ 3).
Guarantee for defects of the item sold in instalments
The liability of the seller for the defects of the item sold in instalments may be excluded or limited by contract only in cases provided for in peculiar provisions (Article 584(1) kc). The contract must not impede the buyer from exercising his rights under the warranty (§ 2).
The liability of the warrant for defects of the property shall be borne only by the seller where the movable item is sold to a natural individual utilizing a debt granted for that intent by the bank, if the debt is to be paid by instalments and the item was issued to the buyer before the full repayment of the debt (Article 588(3) kc).
Guarantee for defects in things on delivery
The supplier shall be liable for the warranty of the physical defects of the goods supplied, besides in this case, where the manufacture of the goods has taken place in the manner determined by the consignee or according to the technological documentation provided by him, unless the supplier, despite his due diligence, could not detect the faultiness of the way in which the goods were produced or the technological documentation was produced or that the recipient, despite the supplier's attention to the above defects, stood by the method of production or technological documentation (Art. 609 kc).
By the transportation contract, the supplier undertakes to produce goods marked only on the species and to deliver them in parts or periodicals, and the consignee undertakes to collect these items and to pay the price (Art. 605 kc).
Guarantee for defects in the contract
The warranty for the physical and legal defects of the contract and the means of production provided to the maker by the Contracting Authority shall be subject to the provisions of the warranty for the sale with that amendment, respectively, that the right to retreat from the contract due to physical defects of the contract shall be granted to the Contracting Authority only if the defects are material (Article 621 kc).
The warranty and the construction contract
The effects of hold by the contractor with the commencement of works or the completion of the work or performance of the work by the contractor in a faulty or contrary to the contract, the warranty for defects of the completed facility, as well as the investor's right to retreat from the contract before the completion of the facility, shall be governed by the provisions on the work contract (Art. 656 §1 kc).
The warrant and the defects of the item as a contribution to a civilian partnership
If a shareholder has undertaken to bring property to the company, to carry out this obligation, as well as to be liable for the warranty and to the hazard of failure or harm of the goods, the sales rules shall apply accordingly. If the goods are to be brought for usage only, the rental provisions (Article 862 kc) shall apply accordingly.
Guarantee and inheritance
The succession may, by a will order, require the heir of a statutory or testamentary individual to fulfil a certain property benefit for the designated individual (normal record) (Article 968 § 1 kc).
If the object of the evidence is to indicate only the species, the warranty rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to the owner of the goods for physical and legal defects. However, the registrant may require only compensation for incorrect performance of the record, or the provision of fault-free items of the same species, and compensation for harm resulting from the hold (Art. 980 kc).
Guarantee and inheritance
After carrying out the inheritance department, the heirs are mutually obliged to vouch for physical and legal defects according to the warranty regulations on sale. The warrant for inheritance claims besides extends to the solvency of the debtor (Article 1046 kc).
Guarantee and inheritance agreement
In the event of divestment of the inheritance, the heir shall not be liable for any physical and legal defects in the individual items belonging to the inheritance (Art. 1056 kc).
On rights with the warranty of the buyer – read here
On the subject of warranty for property defects (house, apartment) - read here
On compensation for incorrect performance – read here
