Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1164/2001 AI generated

Supreme Court allows seller to claim payment from buyer who withheld part of the price due to a defect.

Case Number KKO 1164/2001
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court ruled that a seller could be ordered to pay the amount withheld by the buyer when the buyer had a right to a price reduction based on a defect. The lower court found the buyer entitled to a reduction equal to the withheld portion but failed to address the seller's claim for the remaining balance. The court clarified that the right to a price reduction does not automatically extinguish the buyer's obligation to pay the reduced price, allowing the seller to recover the withheld amount.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Sales Act 1973, Section 25; Sales Act 1973, Section 26: A buyer's right to a price reduction for a defect does not release the buyer from the obligation to pay the reduced price, and the seller may claim the amount withheld by the buyer.

Keywords

AI generated
sales contract price reduction defect in goods withheld payment seller's claim buyer's obligation remedies for breach

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Sales Act 1973, Section 25
Sales Act 1973, Section 26
AI generated
kko-other_2026_335
Supreme Court remands sale auction case for failure to notify buyer of appeal hearing opportunity.
appeal_1984_helsinki__1954
Court dismissed appeal as defendant admitted liability and amount, making court's own reduction of damages procedurally improper.
kko-other_2001_1617
Supreme Court dismissed appeal where lower court awarded price reduction instead of full restitution for property error.
kko-other_2018_2306
Supreme Court allows appeal against lower court's award of price reduction and damages for construction defects.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__1847
Court dismissed appeal claiming victim's new claims after case remand were inadmissible due to prior finality.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Ostaja oli kaupan kohteen virheen perusteella pidättynyt maksamasta osaa kauppahinnasta. Ostajan myyjää vastaan ajaman kanteen johdosta hovioikeus katsoi, että ostajalla oli oikeus hinnanalennukseen, joka määrältään vastasi ostajan pidättämää osuutta kauppahinnasta. Kysymys siitä, voitiinko myyjä velvoittaa suorittamaan tuo määrä ostajalle.