Redhibitory action fails if the buyer keeps the goods

The First Hall of the Civil Court held on 12 May 2026 that a buyer who sues to rescind a sale for a latent defect must return the goods or deposit them in court, and must sue within six months for movables. Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale dismissed a claim for the refund of €17,000 paid for a kitchen. In D.C. vs Brands International Limited the court found the action both out of time and defective because the buyer kept using the kitchen.

The facts

In April 2023 D.C. agreed to buy a kitchen with appliances from the showroom of Brands International Limited for €17,000. The company installed it on 9 and 10 August 2023. Stains soon appeared on the panels of the kitchen island.

On 21 August 2023 the buyer's wife told the company that oil had stained the island panels and that the material seemed porous. On 25 September 2023 she wrote that the doors and drawers were defective. The company's representative denied any defect.

D.C. sued on 3 May 2024, asking the court to rescind the sale, order a refund of the price and award damages. The company pleaded that the action was out of time and that the kitchen had never been deposited in court.

What the court held

The court held that the claims, as framed, were the redhibitory action under article 1427 of the Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta), which lets a buyer give back the thing and recover the price. It refused to let the buyer rely, for the first time in final submissions, on the Consumer Affairs Act (Chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta).

A kitchen is a movable, so article 1431 gives the buyer six months from delivery, or from the day a hidden defect could have been discovered. The court held that this is a period of forfeiture, although the Code calls it prescription. A judicial letter does not interrupt it. Only a clear, formal, explicit and unconditional acknowledgement of the defect by the seller suspends it.

The period starts when the defect shows itself in a way that would make a reasonable person doubt the quality of the thing. The court found that the defect was discovered on 21 August 2023 and established as a defect on 25 September 2023. The case was filed more than six months later, and the seller had never acknowledged a defect. The first plea succeeded.

The court also accepted the second plea. It held that "element kruċjali tal-azzjoni redibitorja li tiddistingwiha mill-azzjoni l-oħra, ossia, dik stimatorja, hija tabilħaqq id-depożitu taħt l-awtorita’ tal-Qorti tal-oġġett lamentat minnu" (a crucial element of the redhibitory action, which distinguishes it from the other action, the aestimatory one, is the deposit under the authority of the court of the thing complained of).

The registry confirmed that no schedule of deposit had been filed for the kitchen. The buyer and his wife testified that the family still used it every day. The court held that a buyer cannot complain of a latent defect while continuing to enjoy the thing, and then seek rescission and a refund.

Having accepted both pleas, the court did not examine whether the panels were in fact defective. It dismissed the claims and ordered the buyer to pay all costs.

Why it matters

A buyer of defective goods who wants the price back must sue within six months of discovering the defect. Talks with the seller do not stop the clock unless the seller clearly admits the defect.

The buyer must also hand the goods back or file a schedule of deposit. A buyer who needs to keep using the goods is left with the aestimatory action, which keeps the thing and seeks a reduction in price. The legal basis must be chosen in the sworn application, not added in final submissions.

Where it sits

The warranty against latent defects in articles 1424 to 1431 of the Civil Code gives the buyer a choice under article 1427 between the redhibitory action and the aestimatory action. Article 1425 excludes apparent defects that the buyer could have discovered alone. These special rules of sale displace the general rules on damages for breach of contract.

On the nature of the action the court cited the Court of Appeal (24 January 2007). On the Consumer Affairs Act it relied on the Court of Magistrates (Malta) (9 October 2023) and the Court of Appeal (12 June 2024) in the same case.

On forfeiture and when time starts it cited AC and his wife BC vs Central Home Style Limited (First Hall, 10 April 2019), the Court of Appeal (15 December 1997) and J&M Aluminium Limited vs Siar Property Investments Limited (Court of Appeal, 1 December 2021). On the duty to return or deposit the goods it cited the Court of Appeal (3 September 2024 and 25 January 2013) and the First Hall (27 October 2005).

Source

First Hall of the Civil Court, 495/2024, 12 May 2026.