When the bed and wardrobe are delivered, both are damaged. However, the customer does not allow an exchange and does not want to pay the remaining amount either – wrongly, as the Munich District Court ruled.
The frustration was great: in early 2019, a woman from Munich bought various pieces of furniture from a large furniture store for almost 1800 euros, including a bed and a closet. She paid half of the purchase price. The balance was due on the day of delivery. When fitters assembled the furniture in her apartment, it turned out that the closet was defective and the bed was scratched and dirty. The customer was angry. At first she didn’t pay the outstanding balance and instead asked for a new closet and a new bed. The furniture store reacted promptly and promised to remedy the situation.
But now the trouble began. When the fitters were standing in front of the Munich woman’s door with a new wardrobe and a new bed and said that the remaining amount was due after assembly, the woman sent the craftsmen away without having accomplished anything because she found their behavior impudent. However, the furniture store still wanted to replace the furniture and now even offered the Munich resident a voucher of 50 to 100 euros if she was cooperative and made it possible to replace the furniture in her apartment.
But the customer switched to stubborn. Two years passed. In February last year, the furniture store made a third attempt to replace the furniture – and was unlucky again. Because the woman from Munich refused the fitters access to her apartment. However, since the furniture store insisted on paying the remaining amount, the case came before a civil court at the Munich District Court.
The seller is to be granted an “opportunity for supplementary performance”.
During the hearing, the accused customer told the responsible judge that she would not pay the full purchase price because she had not received the goods in perfect condition. But that’s not all. Because she is no longer interested in the furniture, she also wants her deposit back, the woman said. The representative of the furniture store, however, pointed out, among other things, that he had a right to have the defect rectified. However, the defendant prevented this without any comprehensible reason. The court agreed with the furniture store.
According to the judgement, the defendant buyer would have been obliged to give the seller an “opportunity for supplementary performance”. The fitters of the furniture store also tried three times to exchange the goods that were the subject of the complaint. According to the court, the buyer should have “made the purchased item available to the seller so that the complaints could be checked”. Therefore, the defendant customer should have let the craftsmen into her apartment to replace the furniture. The defendant’s “right to refuse performance” is therefore excluded. The judgment of the district court (Az. 112 C 10509/20) is not yet final.