Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546781
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 SEPTEMBER 2026 LAW MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates When repeated repairs fail: Court upholds refund for defective electric scooter THE Appeals Court presided by Judge Lawrence Mintoff, con- firmed a refund of €5,200 after a new electric scooter developed repeated defects and remained unreliable despite numerous re- pairs. The judgment, delivered on 23 September 2026 in Chris- tian Mifsud vs Auto Sales Lim- ited, concerned an appeal from a decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal dated 10 De- cember 2025. The tribunal had ordered the company to refund the full purchase price of €5,200, against the return of the scooter. Mifsud purchased the electric scooter from the company in September 2024. Within only a few days, he noticed a noise coming from its rear section and returned it to the seller for repairs. Approximately one month after those repairs, the scooter had to be taken back again, both because the noise persisted and because further problems had developed with its battery. The consumer was informed that he would have to wait five weeks for the necessary parts to be imported. When he received no further information, he ar- ranged an appointment for 21 January 2025. Before that date, however, the scooter stopped working completely and had to be towed to the company. It was then decided that the battery would have to be sent abroad. In the meantime, the company provided a replace- ment battery. That solution was also un- successful. A few days later, the scooter developed an "en- gine fault", and further defects emerged in February 2025. Mifsud consequently sought a refund of the €5,200 purchase price. He also pointed out that he had paid a further €170 for a top box and would have to re- pay 75% of a government grant received through Transport Malta. The company refused to refund the purchase price. Before the tribunal, Au- to Sales Limited argued that the claim was unfounded in fact and law. It admitted that Mifsud had purchased the scooter for €5,200 but main- tained the vehicle was "fit for purpose". According to the company, the battery problem was being addressed as part of a manufacturer's recall and the consumer had been pro- vided with another battery. It contended that it had acted in good faith and in accordance with the warranty, and that it could not be held responsible for misuse of the scooter. The tribunal nevertheless found in favour of the consum- er. It relied principally on Arti- cle 73 of the Consumer Affairs Act, Chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta, which requires goods to be delivered in conformity with the contract of sale, including having the functionality re- quired of them. In the event of a lack of conformity, the con- sumer is entitled to have the goods brought into conformity through repair or replacement, or to obtain a price reduction or termination of the contract. The tribunal also referred to Article 75(2) of the same act, which provides that repairs must be carried out within a reasonable time from the mo- ment the seller is informed of the lack of conformity and without significant inconven- ience to the consumer, tak- ing into account the nature of the goods and the purpose for which they were required. The tribunal observed that the company had done everything reasonably possible to have the scooter brought into conform- ity and had continued to give the seller opportunities to rec- tify the defects. It nevertheless held that there was a limit to the number of times a product should be repaired, especial- ly where the product was new and the repairs caused incon- venience. This was particularly relevant because the product was a vehicle or scooter intend- ed for daily use and because de- fects could pose a danger to the rider. The tribunal referred to Ar- ticle 74(3)(b) of the Consumer Affairs Act, under which the consumer is entitled to termi- nate the contract where the lack of conformity persists despite the seller's attempts to rectify the situation. It con- cluded that termination was the most appropriate outcome and ordered the refund of the full purchase price against the return of the scooter. On appeal, the company ar- gued, among other things, that the tribunal's decision was null because the proceedings had referred to it as "Kind's Auto Sales Limited" rather than "Au- to Sales Limited". The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. Although it found that an error had indeed been made in the company's name, the company had participated normally in the proceedings, filed its reply, presented evidence and lodged the appeal itself. Its registra- tion number, C 491, had always been correctly stated, and there could be no genuine doubt as to the identity of the defendant. The court stressed that nulli- ty is an extreme remedy which is not favoured by Maltese law. It referred to the power grant- ed by the law to correct errors in the names of parties where no prejudice has resulted. The court therefore ordered that the word "Kind's" be deleted wherever it appeared in the proceedings. In doing so, it fol- lowed the principle that an ir- regularity should not invalidate proceedings when the identi- ty of the party is clear and no procedural prejudice has been caused. The judgment also referred to Carmelo Cassar Parnis vs Gustavo Soler noe, decided on 11 March 1949, in relation to the strict and excep- tional nature of nullity. On the substantive issues, Auto Sales Limited argued that the complaints related main- ly to noise and minor defects connected with a manufactur- er's recall. It maintained that the recall work had been com- pleted, that the defects were temporary and repairable, and that it had remained willing to carry out any further repairs. It also argued that termination was an extreme remedy, that the required hierarchy of rem- edies had not been followed, and that the scooter's use, de- preciation and the government grant should have been consid- ered. The court rejected these sub- missions. The evidence showed that the defects had appeared only days after purchase and continued despite repeated interventions, including work carried out abroad. After the original battery was returned and reinstalled following the recall process, further defects appeared within days. The court held that this was not a "temporary repairable is- sue" but a continuing failure to bring the scooter into con- formity with the contract. The court ruled that repeated repairs, without success, could not be regarded as having been carried out within a reasona- ble time or without significant inconvenience. A new scooter purchased towards the end of 2024 had repeatedly been taken in for repairs, leaving the con- sumer unable to use it and re- quiring him to incur further in- convenience, including towing expenses. The defects could also create a risk on the road. The court made clear that the fact that the problems arose from manufacturer recalls did not remove the seller's obli- gations. Whatever their tech- nical origin, the decisive fact was that the scooter remained non-conforming after the re- pairs. The court further held that the repairs had effectively failed and the consumer's continued use of the scooter did not alter that conclusion, since he had reported the defects promptly and cooperated fully with the proposed repairs. The court said the consumer should not bear the cost of any deprecia- tion in value in circumstances where the scooter had never been satisfactorily brought into conformity. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the tribunal's decision was confirmed in full. The costs of both instanc- es were ordered against Auto Sales Limited. File Photo