THE BOTTOM LINE
- The “Prosumer” is a Consumer: A product’s ability to generate income for a user (e.g., trading electricity back to the grid) does not automatically make its purchase a commercial transaction. If the primary use is personal, robust consumer protection laws will likely apply.
- Post-Sale Chats Define the Deal: Be aware that your customer service and sales teams’ communications (including WhatsApp messages) can be used to define the terms of the original agreement. Promises of “coming soon” features can be interpreted as contractual obligations.
- Ignore Complaints at Your Peril: Failing to provide a timely and effective solution for a faulty product can nullify your right to repair it. A Dutch court ordered a full refund and product removal after the seller repeatedly delayed fixing a non-functioning system.
THE DETAILS
This case involved a homeowner who purchased a sophisticated home battery system for over €14,000 from the company Solaar B.V. A key selling point was the battery’s purported ability to automatically trade energy on the Dutch imbalance market, allowing the owner to earn back the significant investment. However, after installation, the crucial trading software was missing, and the battery itself failed to charge properly. The buyer complained immediately, but after months of unfulfilled promises, he sued to have the contract cancelled.
The seller’s primary defense was that this was not a consumer purchase. They argued that because the buyer intended to use the battery to trade energy for profit, he was acting in a commercial capacity and was not entitled to the strong protections of Dutch consumer law. The District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant firmly rejected this argument. It ruled that purchasing a product for a private residence, even with an automated money-making feature, does not remove it from the consumer sphere. This decision is a clear signal for companies selling “prosumer” technology: if your customer is an individual using your product at home, you are almost certainly in a consumer relationship.
Having established this as a consumer sale, the court found the product was “non-conforming” – it simply did not do what the buyer was reasonably led to expect. The seller’s argument that the trading feature was not in the written quote was dismissed. The court pointed to post-sale WhatsApp messages where the company’s own staff acknowledged the feature was expected and promised it was on its way. This, along with evidence of a faulty installation, proved a clear breach of contract. Because the seller was given ample opportunity to fix the issues but failed to act, the court ordered the most severe remedy: a full rescission of the agreement. Solaar B.V. must refund the entire purchase price and pay to have the entire system dismantled and removed.
SOURCE
Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant
