100 thousand The euro truck broke down in a matter of months
Three years ago, the environmental management company Deforta got into a dispute over a low-quality product. 2017 winning a public procurement in July andEnergy distribution operator“(ESO) has entered into a contract with Deforta for the cleaning of airline routes, pruning of branches and felling of trees specifically for this order from”Bobcat“Technikos uostas”, a distributor of forklifts in Lithuania, has purchased a new forklift, which cost more than 100 thousand. euros.
After several months of truck operation (166 hours), the new truck broke down. Deforta loader transferred it to the Technical Port for warranty repairs, but the latter terminated the warranty because it accused the truck of drowning, ie misuse, Delphi says Justas Sankaitis, a lawyer who represented Deforta in court.
Deforta hired independent experts who found that the truck was not submerged and that its engine was of poor quality. However, even after these conclusions, the Technical Port did not change its position. Suspected misuse of the product was due to the truck being sprayed with dirt.
“The loader works on the ground, a lot of rotating parts, working in outdoor conditions, it is natural that dirt is spotted. The truck was sprayed with dirt in the cab and engine compartment. There are also photos on the Bobcat website where the truck is riding in dirt, advertising that it can do so. However, the experts immediately found that the engine failed not due to dirt, but due to an internal defect, ”the lawyer points out.
Associative photo.
© Klaipeda aps. VPK
–
The leasing company prevented the termination of the contract
Since the company acquired the truck throughLuminor leasing“, He was asked to terminate the contract of sale of a low-quality loader. In this case, the truck would be returned to the Technical Port, which would return the money paid for it to Deforta and Luminor Lizingas. According to the lawyer, the leasing company obstructed the process and refused to terminate the contract.
Deforta subsequently terminated the contract for the purchase of the truck itself and applied to the court for a refund of the money under the terminated contract. In the counterclaim, the Technical Port challenged the termination of the contract in accordance with its version of the sinking of the truck. The case also involved the truck’s manufacturer, Doosan Bobcat, who also took the position that the truck had failed due to improper use rather than a factory defect.
Luminor Lizingas does not protect its customers, on the contrary, they may even be formally disturbed without motives. Initially, Deforta wanted to settle the problem amicably and turned to Luminor Lizingas to help its customer by financing the purchase of the truck. We were asked to allow the contract to be terminated because we already had an expert opinion that the truck broke down not because of the sinking but because of internal problems.
Luminor, while receiving these findings, ignored them, did not trust them and, by illegally refusing to give its consent to terminate the contract, prevented its client Deforta from defending its rights in court. “Luminor said it was waiting for the forensic experts’ conclusion,” says J. Sankaitis.
© Asm. album photo
–
The position did not change even after the forensic examination
The forensic examination revealed that the truck’s engine had failed due to a factory defect, – the use of excess sealant during its assembly. Both the Vilnius Regional Court and the Lithuanian Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the forensic examination on the causes of the truck’s failure.
However, even after the findings of the forensic experts, Luminor did not change its position in the case, thus, as the lawyer observes, defending the interests of the Technical Port, not its own client, but the Technical Port, which offered the Defortai truck to buy. through Luminor Leasing.
“If Luminor had immediately agreed to terminate the contract, we might have been forced out of court, a peaceful agreement would have been more realistic. The Technical Port took advantage of Luminor’s refusal, which was one of the main reasons why they challenged the termination of the contract. Because he saw that Luminor did not give his consent to terminate the contract, he supported them, which probably made him feel more courageous and litigated to the full, ”says Deforta’s lawyer.
Sent about 37 thousand. euros
Finally, the Vilnius Regional Court found that Luminor Lizingas had unlawfully prevented Deforta from terminating the purchase agreement unilaterally, and found these actions of Deforta to be lawful.
The court “Defortai” from “Technikos uostas” awarded 20.5 thousand. EUR 16.7 thousand. damages. The court also ordered the Technical Port to return the amount paid by Luminor Lizingas (approximately EUR 79.8 thousand).
Associative photo.
–
According to the lawyer, the company has already complied with the court decision and paid the money.
“It is possible to draw conclusions about the attitude of” Technikos uostas “to its customers and the technical warranty service of the sold products. Instead of repairing a substantially new truck and handing it over to a customer, she was accused of fraud, drowning and misuse of the truck in a sense, completely unfounded and without evidence, but has not proved this in the case.
The result is that the company bought a new truck, worked with it for several months and had to sue for three years to get the money paid for a defective product, ”the lawyer concludes.
Three years without goods and money
According to the interlocutor, the litigation took a long time, as on average such cases last a year or a half. But most importantly, Deforta has been without a working product and money for three years. The company had to hire another more expensive truck to carry out the work, otherwise it would have breached its obligations to ESO. As a result, she suffered damages which the court awarded.
Asked whether it is common for a company trading in forklifts to interpret the goods with customers in court, J. Sankaitis says that he does not know more about the same cases. However, he considers that there may have been minor cases that have been resolved out of court: “Perhaps customers, if a smaller amount goes down, pay that much.”
At that time, according to the lawyer, Luminor Lizingas is often involved in the courts, but it has been difficult to say whether there has been a similar situation:
–
Luminor: We recommend that you seek a consensus with the seller
Representatives of Luminor Lizingas, as well as the situation itself, did not comment on this issue “due to bank secrecy”. Indrė Baltrušaitienė, the Bank’s Head of Communications, submitted the following comment from Luminor Lizingas:
“The leasing company only finances the purchase and sale of goods, ie the buyer of the goods chooses the property to be acquired and its seller, with whom he coordinates the conditions of purchase and warranty of the property. The leasing company settles accounts with the seller of the goods and gives the buyer the opportunity to use the property immediately, paying periodic installments for an agreed period of time until the property is fully redeemed.
Thus, regardless of whether the goods purchased or rented are financed by own or borrowed funds, the seller of the goods is responsible for their quality. We recommend that buyers always evaluate in advance whether a product is being purchased or rented, and the warranty service applied to it meets their expectations.
Termination of the contract of sale of goods is possible on the basis of the cases provided for in the contract or when a legal basis for this arises.
When a customer is faced with a situation where a lease agreement has been concluded for a product that turns out to be defective, we recommend that you seek a general agreement with the seller of the product on how to replace or return it. If no mutually acceptable solution is found and a dispute arises, it shall be settled by a court in accordance with the procedure established by law. ”
Delphi also tried to contact the representatives of the Technical Port, but did not receive any comments. Upon receipt, the text will be supplemented.
–
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any form without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
