2023-07-18 21:34:03
A woman from Cipolletti bought a flat for the construction of her house pBut the store did not have the stock and it took five months to deliver the purchase. In a civil trial, the sentence once morest the company was confirmed, following an appeal.
As detailed, the victim had made the purchase of 175 square meters of porcelain floor from an offer disseminated in the mediabut at the time of searching for the order, the store did not have the material.
When the client noticed that the material was not delivered filed a claim with the Municipal Consumer Information Office. She waited for more than four months but when she did not get answers, she went back to the branch with a notary. At that moment, They promised to deliver the apartment they had bought.
Once they were delivered on the sidewalk of the construction site, They tried to make him sign a document in which he desisted from any type of legal and administrative action.
In the civil trial, the woman proved through the masons that the work was delayed as a result of late delivery of the 135 porcelain boxes. They confirmed that five months had passed since he paid them at the business premises in Neuquén until the freight arrived at the house in Cipolletti.
That determined the ruling in the civil trial in Cipolletti
In the judgment it was established that the duty of information had a primary influence on the decision. In other words, the woman would not have bought the product if she knew regarding the shortage in the trade, “because she was at work and she wanted to have the materials right away,” she stated.
in the sentence Cencosud SA was ordered to pay the victim a sum of money for moral damages and another civil fine. They described that the woman made the purchase at the local Easy Newport.
“Regarding the moral damage, the disorders caused by the lack of material and the stoppage of the work, the long pilgrimage to which it was subjected, the mistreatment inflicted, the lack of answers and information, the loss of time, the state of uncertainty that she had to go through, the feelings of indignation and impotence that invaded her,” they detailed in the ruling.
In the civil fine it was considered non-compliance with the Consumer Defense Law and inequitable treatment. From the multinational company they appealed the ruling but the court dismissed the arguments and confirmed the first instance sentence.
1689716644
#bought #construction #materials #months #deliver #fined #business
