‍In its recent case law[1], the Supreme Court has explained that defects in the object of purchase (here a vehicle with a rolled-up speedometer) do not constitute grounds for the application of the institute of disproportionate reduction under Section 1793 of the Civil Code.

Exceptionally, the principle of undue hardship makes it possible to claim rescission of the contract and restitution to the original state if the normal price of the mutually provided services proves to be grossly disproportionate (and if the 'enriched' party fails to make up the difference).

The condition for the application of this exceptional remedy is not even the abuse of the subjective disadvantages of the shortened party (distress, intellectual weakness, recklessness, etc.) by the "enriched" party, but only the disadvantageous position due to information asymmetry.

Of course, the purpose is not to cancel all contracts where the purchase price does not correspond to the market value of the object of purchase, but only where the performance has fallen into "gross" disproportion.

The Supreme Court has now clarified that disproportionality of performance can only be inferred from circumstances relating to the proportion of the amount of performance agreed in the contract. Therefore, only those benefits which the parties had agreed in the contract would have to be disproportionate and thus disproportionality cannot be inferred only from the value of the benefit received which did not correspond to the contractual arrangement.

Thus, the CFI did not find disproportionate shortage in a situation where the buyer acquired a vehicle with 11 times higher mileage than declared in the purchase contract.

Although the normal price of a vehicle with 40,000 km of mileage would be significantly higher than a vehicle with 400,000 km more mileage, the institute of disproportionate shortening does not correct the actual state of performance, but the gross disproportion of the values of performance under the contract.

The main means of protection in such a situation therefore remains the rights arising from defective performance, which the purchaser must assert in good time.

[1] Judgment of the Supreme Court, Case No. 33 Cdo 2313/2023 of 28 May 2024

‍

We used a publicly available AI translation tool to translate this article from Czech to English. Please contact us if any of the above information is unclear to you.