The dissertation is aimed at the examination of the principle according to which the seller is not liable for defects in the goods, if these are known or knowable to the buyer, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the context of the B-to-C sale of movable goods. The principle under consideration has a general and transactional character: arising first in the Romanistic sale and enshrined in the brocard "caveat emptor," it came to the codification work in the 1800s, and then achieved the international sale of goods, through the adoption of the Vienna Convention in 1980. In the European Union law, this principle was regulated, for the first time, by Directive 1999/44/EC, which, in Article 2(3), provides that if, at the time the contract was concluded, the consumer was aware or could not reasonably be unaware of the lack of conformity, the consumer could not claim the lack of conformity against the seller. The adoption of the principle in question in the European Union system has risen several critical questions in terms of its interpretation and application: this principle, although it could be justified in national legal systems, appears to be incompatible with the specific features of the European Union law. Therefore, the intervention of Directive (EU) 2019/771, related to certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods – repealing Directive 1999/44/EC –, is of absolute importance. Indeed, the principle that the liability of the trader for lack of conformity depended on the subjective states of the consumer is definitively exceeded. Moreover, with a view to enhance private autonomy, the faculty of deviation, expressly and separately accepted by the consumer, from the objective requirements for conformity is introduced (Art. 7(5), implemented without changes to Art. 130(4), Code of consumers, as replaced by Art. 1 of Legislative Decree No. 170 of Nov. 4, 2021). On the other hand, although the model constituted by the new directive entails the overcoming of the critical issues raised by the previous regulation on the sale of consumer goods, it raises new and no less relevant critical profiles. Eventually, since the knowability of the defect is no longer relevant as an exemption to the liability of the seller, it remains to clarify the actual relevance of the consumer’s knowledge of the defect at the time of the conclusion of the contract: the question arises as to whether the conduct of the consumer who, despite being aware of the defect, decides to enter into the contract of sale, and then to take remedial action, can be assessed in the same way as the principle of good faith and fair dealing.
La tesi di dottorato è diretta all’approfondimento del principio in base al quale il venditore non è chiamato a rispondere dei difetti del bene, laddove questi fossero conosciuti o conoscibili al compratore, al momento della conclusione del contratto, nell’ambito della vendita B-to-C di beni mobili. Il principio in esame vanta carattere generale e transazionale: sorto dapprima nella vendita romanistica e consacrato nel brocardo “caveat emptor”, è giunto fino all’opera di codificazione del 1800, per poi approdare nella vendita internazionale di beni mobili, attraverso l’adozione della Convenzione di Vienna del 1980. Nel diritto dell’Unione europea, esso viene ratificato per la prima volta dalla direttiva 1999/44/CE che, all’art. 2, par. 3, prevede che ove il difetto fosse conosciuto o ragionevolmente conoscibile al consumatore, al momento della stipula del contratto, questi non potesse far valere alcun difetto di conformità nei confronti del professionista. L’approdo del principio in esame nell’ordinamento comunitario ha suscitato diverse criticità sul piano ermeneutico e applicativo: tale principio invero seppur poteva trovare una giustificazione negli ordinamenti di carattere nazionale, appare incompatibile con le peculiarità dell’ordinamento dell’Unione europea. Di assoluta importanza dunque l’intervento della direttiva (UE) 2019/771, relativa a determinati aspetti dei contratti di vendita di beni – che abroga la direttiva 1999/44/CE – con la quale si addiviene al superamento definitivo del principio che faceva dipendere dagli stati soggettivi del consumatore la responsabilità del professionista per difetto di conformità e, in un’ottica di valorizzazione dell’autonomia privata, alla contestuale introduzione della facoltà di scostamento, espressamente e separatamente accettato dal consumatore, dai requisiti oggettivi di conformità (art. 7, par. 5, attuato senza variazioni all’art. 130, comma 4, cod. cons., come sostituito dall’art. 1 del d.lgs. n. 170 del 4 novembre 2021). D’altro canto, seppur il modello costituito dalla nuova direttiva comporti il superamento delle criticità suscitate dalla precedente disciplina in tema di vendita di beni di consumo, esso suscita nuovi e non meno rilevanti profili di criticità. Infine, posto che la conoscibilità del difetto non rileva più quale esimente della responsabilità del professionista, rimane da chiarire l’effettiva rilevanza della conoscenza del difetto da parte del consumatore, al momento della conclusione del contratto: ci si può infatti chiedere se la condotta del consumatore, il quale pur a conoscenza del difetto decida ugualmente di stipulare il contratto di vendita, per poi azionare i rimedi riparatori, possa essere valutata alla stregua del canone di buona fede e di correttezza.
PROFILI DI RILEVANZA DELLA CONOSCENZA E DELLA CONOSCIBILITÀ DEL DIFETTO DI CONFORMITÀ NELLE VENDITE MOBILIARI B-TO-C Dal Codice civile italiano alla Direttiva (UE) 2019/771
DIANIN, Marilina
2022
Abstract
The dissertation is aimed at the examination of the principle according to which the seller is not liable for defects in the goods, if these are known or knowable to the buyer, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the context of the B-to-C sale of movable goods. The principle under consideration has a general and transactional character: arising first in the Romanistic sale and enshrined in the brocard "caveat emptor," it came to the codification work in the 1800s, and then achieved the international sale of goods, through the adoption of the Vienna Convention in 1980. In the European Union law, this principle was regulated, for the first time, by Directive 1999/44/EC, which, in Article 2(3), provides that if, at the time the contract was concluded, the consumer was aware or could not reasonably be unaware of the lack of conformity, the consumer could not claim the lack of conformity against the seller. The adoption of the principle in question in the European Union system has risen several critical questions in terms of its interpretation and application: this principle, although it could be justified in national legal systems, appears to be incompatible with the specific features of the European Union law. Therefore, the intervention of Directive (EU) 2019/771, related to certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods – repealing Directive 1999/44/EC –, is of absolute importance. Indeed, the principle that the liability of the trader for lack of conformity depended on the subjective states of the consumer is definitively exceeded. Moreover, with a view to enhance private autonomy, the faculty of deviation, expressly and separately accepted by the consumer, from the objective requirements for conformity is introduced (Art. 7(5), implemented without changes to Art. 130(4), Code of consumers, as replaced by Art. 1 of Legislative Decree No. 170 of Nov. 4, 2021). On the other hand, although the model constituted by the new directive entails the overcoming of the critical issues raised by the previous regulation on the sale of consumer goods, it raises new and no less relevant critical profiles. Eventually, since the knowability of the defect is no longer relevant as an exemption to the liability of the seller, it remains to clarify the actual relevance of the consumer’s knowledge of the defect at the time of the conclusion of the contract: the question arises as to whether the conduct of the consumer who, despite being aware of the defect, decides to enter into the contract of sale, and then to take remedial action, can be assessed in the same way as the principle of good faith and fair dealing.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Tesi ultima.pdf
accesso aperto
Descrizione: Tesi
Tipologia:
Tesi di dottorato
Dimensione
2.22 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.22 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.