What remedies can a consumer choose for defective goods?

Not every dispute about a malfunctioning product is merely a technical-service matter. Whether the product conformed to the contract on delivery and which remedy the consumer requests must also be assessed. The defective-goods provisions establish four main alternative remedies.

This note concerns goods acquired by a consumer acting outside a trade or profession from a seller acting for commercial or professional purposes. Not every second-hand purchase or sale between individuals should be assumed to follow the same rules.

Summary: Subject to statutory conditions, a consumer may choose rescission, a price reduction, free repair or replacement with a defect-free equivalent. These differ from the right of withdrawal in distance sales. Sales and delivery documents, stated product features, when the fault appeared and the written request must be considered together. The available remedy depends on the product and the particular dispute.

When are goods considered defective?

A defect is not limited to a product failing completely. Failure to match the agreed sample or model, the absence of a required feature, or a problem reducing the benefit reasonably expected by the consumer may also qualify. The basic definition appears in Article 8 of Law No. 6502.

The question is therefore not simply whether the product works. The model, capacity and other qualities specified when ordering also matter. Conversely, not every problem arising during use automatically constitutes a defect present at delivery; its cause must be examined.

What are the four alternative remedies?

Article 11 provides for:

• Rescission: requesting repayment of the price while declaring readiness to return the goods.
• Price reduction: retaining the goods and requesting a reduction proportionate to the defect.
• Free repair: requesting repair at the seller’s expense, provided it does not entail excessive cost.
• Replacement: requesting a defect-free equivalent where possible.

These options are not unlimited in every case. Statutory restrictions include disproportionate difficulty caused by repair or replacement. Claims against the seller and claims against the manufacturer or importer do not have the same scope; free repair and replacement can also be requested from the manufacturer or importer. The Ministry’s information guide explains the distinctions.

Are defective-goods remedies the same as withdrawal?

No. Defective-goods claims are based on non-conformity with the contract. The right of withdrawal in distance contracts is a different right, exercisable without giving a reason within its statutory scope and exceptions. Identifying the basis of the request correctly therefore matters.

Simply disliking a product bought online is different from receiving one that lacks the qualities specified in the order. Withdrawal periods and exceptions should not be substituted for defective-goods rules. Articles 8–12 and 48 show the distinction.

What does the first-six-months rule mean?

Under Article 10, defects appearing within six months of delivery are presumed to have existed at delivery, and the seller bears the burden of proving otherwise. The presumption does not apply where incompatible with the nature of the goods or defect.

This does not mean all consumer rights expire after six months. A presumption about the burden of proof and a limitation period are different matters. Record the delivery date and the first appearance of the problem separately. Limitation is assessed for the specific case, taking the goods and statutory exceptions into account.

How can documents be organised?

Sales and delivery records show the terms on which the product was acquired. The order description, correspondence and service documents help compare stated features with the later problem.

Keep brand and model details, delivery date, the problem description and the request to the other party distinct. Explaining the conditions in which the problem occurs, rather than merely stating that the product is broken, makes the events easier to understand. This recordkeeping does not itself show that a particular request will succeed; the scope of rights is assessed from the whole case.