Attefallhus is delivered too late and is tainted with errors – consumer is granted over SEK 320,000 in compensation
Attefallhus is delivered too late and is tainted with errors – consumer is granted over SEK 320,000 in compensation
A consumer has ordered a turnkey shelter from a company. According to the consumer, however, the house is delivered too late and is riddled with errors; she is therefore suing the company in court to obtain compensation.The Court of Appeal finds that a loosely stated timetable does not mean that the company had the right to deliver the house as late as possible and that the consumer is therefore entitled to compensation due to late delivery.Furthermore, the right to compensation is considered to exist because of the faults with which the house is affected.
A woman has ordered a turnkey detached house from the company Modulhus, which she plans to rent out. However, according to the buyer, the house is delivered too late and has several faults, which means that she cannot rent it out as planned. She is therefore suing Modulhus in the District Court with a claim for just over SEK 440,000 in damages and price deductions. The claimed amount is partly for lost compensation as she was unable to rent out the house, and partly to fix the faults with which the house is affected.
The district court begins by examining whether the house was delivered too late. In the parties’ agreement, there is a loosely specified timetable according to which the house must be ready for delivery no later than eight weeks after the down payment has been paid. In the case, however, it took about four months from the payment of the down payment to the house being usable. According to Modulhus, the process has taken longer than usual because the seller ordered a placement of the kitchen that differs from the house’s original drawing. However, the buyer believes that this is not the case, but that the location of the kitchen chosen constitutes one of two standard versions. The court states that images on Modulhus’ website support the company’s claim and that it is therefore proven that the drawings have been changed. A certain delay in delivery has thus been justified. Given that the timetable in the agreement is very loosely stated, the District Court therefore does not consider that the attefall house was delivered too late.
The next question to be examined is whether the buyer is entitled to damages due to the defects she believes the house is tainted with. As evidence, she relies on a statement by an inspector and a testimony given by a construction contractor who examined the house. Looking at the evidence, the District Court considers that the buyer proved that the house has the defects that she alleges. In light of the expert opinion and the testimony, the court further finds that SEK 235,000 in damages and price deductions is a reasonable compensation. With only part of the claim being granted, the buyer appeals the case to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal initially examines whether the delivery took place too late, excluding any delays due to changed drawings. We share the District Court’s assessment that the agreement is very vaguely worded and that Modulhus therefore did not promise delivery by a certain date. On the other hand, the court does not consider that this means that the company can delay delivery for any length of time. In order to set some kind of time frame, the Court of Appeal is guided by Section 5 of the Consumer Purchase Act, where it is stipulated that a product must be delivered after thirty days at the latest if nothing else has been agreed. Looking at the collected information in the case, in combination with the provision in the Consumer Purchase Act, the court judges that Modulhus should have delivered the attefallshuset about a month earlier than they have done.
The Court of Appeal states that according to Section 9 of the Consumer Purchase Act, there is a delay on the seller’s side if the goods are delivered too late and it is not due to the buyer or any relationship on the buyer’s side. The next question to be tested is therefore whether the delivery was delayed because the buyer requested changed drawings. The court states that Modulhus did not present any standard drawings as evidence and that the architect who made the drawings was not heard either. However, both the buyer and her husband stated in questioning that they were given the option of placing the kitchen in two different places. There is also an SMS conversation between the buyer and a seller at Modulhus that proves that claim. The Court of Appeal therefore finds that the delivery cannot be considered to have been delayed due to changed drawings.
In addition to the changes in the drawings, Modulhus claims that the delay is due to the buyer finishing the ground work only ten days before delivery. However, the buyer has submitted evidence proving that the ground work was completed as soon as Modulhus announced that the house would soon be delivered. The court therefore finds it demonstrated that the buyer was prepared to complete the ground works at short notice. Modulhus has thus not proven that the delay is due to the buyer, which means that the delivery was delayed according to Section 9 of the Consumer Purchase Act. With regard to the defects that the house was subject to upon delivery, the Court of Appeal shares the District Court’s assessment regarding which defects exist. On the other hand, they calculate the compensation to be paid differently and find that the buyer must pay just over SEK 320,000 in compensation for the delayed delivery and the defects in the house.
rygt 320 000 kr i ersättning för den försenade leveransen och bristerna på huset.