In this legal circular, we shall briefly address the issue of the sale of used goods, particularly in relation to the trader’s liability for defects in such goods. In the case of the sale of used goods, the legal regulation in the Civil Code contains substantial deviations from the regime of “ordinary” sale of goods in a shop. These questions may be topical, for example, in cases of resale of goods which have been returned to the trader as a result of withdrawal from the purchase contract by the consumer pursuant to Section 53(7) of the Civil Code.

What is meant by used goods is not defined by legislation, nor is the degree of wear and tear necessary for goods to be considered used goods within the meaning of the law defined. In practice, therefore, it will depend primarily on the manner of sale (presentation) of the goods and on the related objective circumstances. The sale of used items (goods) must be distinguished from a legal point of view from the sale of goods with a defect (pursuant to Section 618 of the Civil Code), although naturally the concurrence of these two cases is not excluded.

The main difference compared to the regime of “ordinary” sale of goods in a shop is the fact that in the case of used items, liability for defects which occur subsequently after acceptance of the item does not, in principle, arise on the part of the seller. In the case of the sale of used goods, therefore, no warranty period is established by law, and if the seller does not provide the buyer with a warranty (contractually, by unilateral manifestation of will), the seller is liable only for defects which the item had at the time of its acceptance by the buyer. Section 619(3) of the Civil Code further adds that “in the case of used items, the seller is not liable for defects corresponding to the degree of use or wear and tear which the item had upon acceptance by the buyer.”

Section 626 of the Civil Code then provides that “in the case of used items, rights arising from liability for defects in the item shall lapse if they have not been asserted within 24 months from the day of acceptance of the item by the buyer. The seller may shorten this period by agreement with the buyer, but not to less than 12 months; the seller shall state this period in the document for the sale of the item.” The seller may therefore, when selling used goods, agree with the buyer on a shortening of the period during which the buyer is entitled to assert rights arising from liability for defects. The above-mentioned time limits, both statutory and any contractual ones, are of a substantive law and preclusive character, which means that at the latest on the last day of the time limit the buyer’s manifestation of will must reach the seller and upon their futile expiry the buyer’s rights lapse.

Even in the case of the arising of liability for defects in used goods, it is necessary to distinguish between the individual acts of the buyer – notification of a defect (complaint) and assertion of a right arising from liability for defects in the item. According to existing case law, in order for rights arising from liability for defects in an item sold in a shop not to lapse, it is not sufficient for the buyer merely to notify the seller of a defect in the item (lodge a complaint) within the specified period, but it is necessary for the buyer also to state specifically within this time limit what right he is asserting with the seller for this reason. In the case of the arising of liability for defects in used items, the buyer’s entitlement to replacement of the item is then also limited by Section 624 of the Civil Code, which provides that “if … a used item has a defect for which the seller is liable, the buyer has, instead of the right to replacement of the item, the right to a reasonable discount.”

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