After a considerable time, we will address within the framework of the legal circular the issue of reimbursement of costs related to a complaint (reimbursement of costs related to the exercise of rights arising from liability for defects in goods). This area must be rigorously distinguished from situations where withdrawal from the purchase contract by a consumer occurs without stating reasons. In the case of such withdrawal from the contract, various costs may also arise for the parties; however, the legal regulation in this area is different. In the case of a complaint, the contract continues to exist, with the purchaser “merely” exercising their rights arising from liability for defects (believing that the goods have a defect).

The matter in question is regulated in the Civil Code by the provision of Section 1924, which applies generally to all cases of exercising rights arising from liability for defects (from a purchase contract, from a contract for work, etc.). The current legislative wording is not entirely ideal (a legislative clarification is being prepared); however, it should apply that the person who has rights arising from liability for defects is also entitled to “reimbursement of costs purposefully incurred in exercising this right. However, if the right to reimbursement is not claimed within one month after the expiry of the period within which the defect must be pointed out, the court shall not award the right if the transferor objects that the right to reimbursement was not claimed in time.” This means, inter alia, that the right to reimbursement of purposefully incurred costs related to lodging a complaint arises for the purchaser only if the goods actually had a defect (the complaint was lodged legitimately).

What is considered purposefully incurred costs? According to legal theory, this includes not only costs for transporting defective goods to the place of repair and costs of communication with the trader, but also costs associated with storing or moving the goods (for the purpose of examining the defect) and costs of pointing out the defect itself (essentially only costs incurred for notification). The amount of these costs may naturally differ substantially depending on the nature of the goods complained about, and whilst for some traders this matter may be marginal, for others the reimbursement of costs related to complaints may represent a significant expenditure item.

From the above it therefore follows that it is not necessary to reimburse costs incurred without purpose. For example, if the purchaser unnecessarily has an expert assessment of the defect carried out, even though it was not necessary because the seller did not dispute the defect, this is not a cost incurred purposefully. However, if the purchaser disputes the defect in the goods, even the cost of obtaining an expert opinion may be purposefully incurred, and if it subsequently emerges that the goods had defects, such cost must be reimbursed to the purchaser.

In conclusion, we remind that the issue of reimbursement of costs related to a complaint must be distinguished from situations where the purchaser acquires a right to compensation for damage as a consequence of a defect in the goods. For example, due to a defect in a refrigerator, it is necessary to dismantle part of a fitted kitchen. In such a case, the costs for the related work constitute damage incurred by the purchaser and are therefore not costs related to the exercise of rights arising from a defect (these may not arise at all).

Josef Aujezdský

This text was originally prepared by the law firm Mašek, Kočí, Aujezdský in cooperation with the Association for Electronic Commerce (APEK) as legal circular No. 9/2021 intended for members of this association.

This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.