Reflections on Judgment Cass. civ., Sec. II, no. 18610 of 2017: Sale and Manufacturer's Liability

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 18610 of 2017 offers significant food for thought regarding the distinction between contractual and non-contractual liability, particularly in the context of the sale of consumer goods. In this article, we will analyze the main points of the decision, highlighting the implications for consumers and manufacturers.

The Legal Issue

The dispute originated from a warranty action brought by T.A. against Fiat Auto S.p.A. for an alleged malfunction of a vehicle. The Court of Taranto had rejected the appellant's appeal, arguing that Fiat's liability was exclusively non-contractual. The Court confirmed this position, clarifying that the manufacturer's liability is governed by Legislative Decree no. 206 of 2005, known as the Consumer Code.

The Court of Cassation excluded the manufacturer's contractual liability, emphasizing the importance of correctly identifying the legal figures involved in the transaction.

Fundamental Distinctions

The Court highlighted some crucial distinctions:

• Contractual Liability vs. Non-Contractual Liability: The Court established that, in this case, the manufacturer's liability could not be considered contractual as there was no direct link between the consumer and Fiat Auto, which acted as the manufacturer.
• Sales Chain: According to the regulations, the consumer must always turn to their immediate seller for contractual actions, while they can only pursue the manufacturer for non-contractual liability related to product defects.

Implications for Consumers and Manufacturers

This judgment underscores the importance of understanding one's positions and rights within the sales chain. Consumers must be aware that:

• They can only take action against the direct seller for conformity defects.
• They can only turn to the manufacturer in case of damages caused by product defects, according to non-contractual rules.

For manufacturers, the judgment represents protection against direct actions by consumers, unless there is evidence of liability for direct damages.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment Cass. civ., Sec. II, no. 18610 of 2017 serves as a guide for understanding the complexities of liabilities related to the sale of goods. It emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between contractual and non-contractual liabilities, and the centrality of the seller's role in the distribution chain. Understanding these principles is fundamental both for consumers, who seek to protect their rights, and for manufacturers, who must navigate liability rules in a competitive market.