The applicant (living in the Netherlands) bought dining room chairs from a company located in Belgium and paid €616. The company delivered the chairs to the claimant. Eight months later, there were problems with one of the chairs and the company sent one of its members to inspect the situation. Subsequently, a few months later, the chair was replaced by the company. A few months after this substitution, the claimant contacted the company again because of problems with another three chairs. The defendant contacted the supplier according to which the situation was normal. Following this information, the claimant questioned why he was not informed of this at the moment of the acquisition and concluded that he would not have bought the chairs had he known they had such a short lifespan. The claimant requested the defendant to take back the chairs so he could purchase other chairs at an additional cost. The defendant company refused to come to an arrangement with the claimant.
The claimant filed for an ESCP for an amount of €453 and requested also reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings. The defendant company argued that the guarantee of two years did not apply to the purchased budget chairs and that it was normal they worn out after a year. Based on Art. 5(2) Rome Convention, Dutch law is applicable to the contract. In consideration of the advertising the defendant company makes and the actual price of the seats, according to the standards of reasonableness and fairness, the judge concluded that the applicant could not have concluded that the acquired seats will be damaged within one year. The error in which the claimant found itself was a valid legal basis for canceling the agreement. The claimant was entitled to the reimbursement of the requested amount (€453) and the costs of the proceedings (€115).