Natural materials such as stone or wood are popular due to their unique appearance – but at the same time, they can give rise to legal disputes if the delivered product differs visually from the display sample. The Supreme Court recently addressed the question of whether such a color deviation constitutes a warranty claim for replacement.
After viewing the kitchen in a kitchen studio, a buyer ordered a kitchen with stone-white cabinetry and a natural stone countertop. After delivery and installation, he was furious because the countertop delivered differed significantly in appearance from the sample on display. The seller refused to replace it, and the customer didn't pay.
The central legal question in this case was whether a deviation from patterns in natural materials constitutes a warranty defect within the meaning of Sections 922 ff ABGB and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a replacement of the worktop or a price reduction within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Warranty Act (VGG).
The court of first instance rejected the buyer's request for a replacement, but awarded the seller only 50 1% of the purchase price, arguing that a visual defect justified a price reduction. The appeal court upheld this ruling in full. Due to the lack of supreme court case law regarding the legal classification of color deviations in natural stone slabs as defects, an appeal to the Supreme Court (OGH) was allowed. The OGH dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, arguing that no significant legal issue was raised. It emphasized that the visual deviation did constitute a defect, but denied a claim for replacement. Improvement was not possible, as a natural stone slab has a unique character. A replacement would have involved disproportionate effort for the seller, which is why he could not be obligated to do so. The Supreme Court confirmed the appropriateness of the price reduction of 50 1%. The slab had been installed technically flawlessly and properly, and the defect consisted solely in its visual deviation from the sample. This justified a price reduction, but not a replacement.
The Supreme Court thus confirms that a visual deviation from the pattern of natural products constitutes a defect and that customers can rely on warranty remedies even if the function and technical design are flawless.
Supreme Court 11.12.2024, 6 Ob 202/24k
05.05.2025