Ruling on a BMW X4 defect case highlights consumer rights and remedies
A resident of Syktyvkar bought a BMW X4 from an official dealer, Borishof 1, for 2.58 million rubles. During the warranty period, the buyer noticed that the paint on the front bumper peeled away. A nearby BMW service center inspected the vehicle and confirmed that the issue stemmed from a manufacturing defect.
The buyer sent a written claim to Borishof 1 requesting a price reduction of 100,000 rubles. She explained that she was pregnant and could not travel to the service centers in Perm, which are over 750 kilometers away by car from Syktyvkar. The request was made with the aim of a practical resolution while avoiding lengthy travel under difficult conditions.
The seller did not respond to the first letter. The woman sent a second claim insisting that the bumper be repaired. Again, there was no reply.
She subsequently demanded that the contract be terminated, the purchase price be refunded, the difference between the amount paid and the current price of a similar foreign car be paid, a penalty, compensation for moral damages, and reimbursement of investigative costs. The dealer replied that there was no grounds for satisfaction since the defect was minor and repairable. The dealer also pressed that the plaintiff would need to come to a Perm service center for repairs, which the plaintiff could not do.
In court, she sought 2.58 million rubles as repayment for the car, the difference between this amount and the price at the time the dispute was resolved (about 420,000 rubles), 50,000 rubles in non pecuniary damages, a penalty, and court costs. After learning of the lawsuit, the dealer voluntarily offered 45,976 rubles, but ultimately paid only 40,000 rubles. The amount left unsatisfied fueled continued litigation.
Over the next three trials, the courts sided with the dealer, finding the defect was minor and removable and that the seller had not repaired the car because the plaintiff had not delivered it. The alleged remoteness of the service center and the plaintiff’s pregnancy were not weighed as decisive factors. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court seeking a reassessment of the outcome.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court noted that, under paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, the buyer has the right to demand delivery of bulky goods for repair rather than bearing an obligation to ship them. It also criticized the lower courts for treating the plaintiff’s concerns about service center remoteness and pregnancy as minor without considering the dispute’s underlying cause or the seller’s prior lack of response to the claims.
Additionally, Article 22 of the Consumer Rights Act requires the seller to provide a proportionate price reduction within ten days of the demand, or to repair the defect free of charge. If neither action occurs, the seller must pay a penalty, and the consumer may pursue other remedies outlined in the act.
The Supreme Court reversed the prior decisions, quashed the appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to be reconsidered with these principles in mind.
Acknowledgment: the case and ruling are documented and attributed to official judicial consideration and related legal texts.