|
|
|
Burden of proof under sales contract
|
| |
22. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where it becomes apparent during the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time that goods supplied under a sales contract are not in conformity with the sales contract, the lack of conformity shall be presumed to have existed at the relevant time unless—
|
|
| |
(a) the contrary is proven, or
|
|
| |
(b) such a presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with the nature of the lack of conformity.
|
|
| |
(2) Where a sales contract for the sale of goods with digital elements provides for the continuous supply of the digital content or digital service for a period specified in the sales contract, the burden of proof as to whether the digital content or digital service was in conformity with the sales contract during that period shall be on the trader for a lack of conformity which becomes apparent during that period.
|
|
| |
(3) For the purposes of relying on the presumption under subsection (1), the consumer shall be required to prove only that—
|
|
| |
(a) the goods are not in conformity with the sales contract, and
|
|
| |
(b) the lack of conformity became apparent during the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time.
|
|
| |
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent or restrict a consumer from exercising a remedy after the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the relevant time.
|
