The burden of proof of a professional salesperson might be substantially greater

Sometimes purchases may have defects, that cause the buyers to file claims against the retailers. Whilst submitting the claim, the defect itself and proving the existence of the defect are essential. Generally, all parties have to prove their statements themselves during (court) disputes. However, some exceptions might occur, according to the new case law.

In a situation, where one of the parties is a professional retailer and the other party is a consumer, the burden of proof might be divided differently in some cases-, since the consumer is considered to be in a weaker position. In those cases, the professional retailer might have a greater burden of proof than the consumer. Additionally, the consumer doesn’t have to list the defects in great detail, a statement regarding the defects is considered to be enough.

The difference in burden of proof doesn’t apply automatically nor always, but depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has decided in one of their resolution from last year regarding a defected car, that the consumer’s burden of proof can’t be unlimited in a situation that requires in-depth knowledge. The Supreme Court found that if there is a need for in-depth knowledge, then the retailer must have a bigger burden of proof than the consumer, since the consumer can’t be expected to have such knowledge. In addition, the consumer might lack the possibility to prove that the defects exist in situations, where the defects have been fixed and defected part has been destroyed.

To avoid a situation where professional retailers lack evidence to defend themselves with, it’s wise to analyse the nature of the product, i.e. could they have defects, which would require in-depth knowledge, revise the terms and conditions of the contract and if possible, ensure as many evidence of the product being in accordance with the contract as possible.

Need help in this area? Contact Attorney Siiri Kuusik.

Latest news

Handwritten signatures vs. e-signatures

Signs have played an important role in human communication for centuries. First personalised signs were created to mark one’s property. As handicraft and trade progressed, there was a need to distinguish one’s product from other similar ones. There was also a need for confirmations of written notifications to verify that a declaration of intent was related to a particular sender. E.g. seal rings could be considered as the predecessors of signed declarations of intent.

GDPR challenges for blockchain technology

The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which will come into force on May 25, 2018 is the most discussed law across Europe. It contains stricter standards for collecting and processing personal data and may greatly impact how new technologies will be released. For example, blockchain is one of the hottest topics in the world of technology nowadays which in its current state will most probably be incompatible with GDPR.

NJORD partners Anne Veerpalu, Katrin Sarap and Triinu Hiob have great reviews in Chambers & Partners Europe 2018 guide

Chambers & Partners Europe 2018 commends Anne Veerpalu: “She is particularly recommended for her track record in the start-up scene. She often advises technology companies on a broad range of private equity matters and commercial issues. One client praises her “great insight and ability to communicate complicated topics.” Recently she assisted Starman with a number of day-to-day issues, […]

Get the latest legal news

We gladly share our knowledge with you. Subscribe to our newsletters.

Subscribe here