Can a buyer demand a purchase price reduction only through a court of law?
The Slovene Code of Obligations (Obligacijski zakonik; OZ) stipulates that where a defective product has been sold, the buyer, having previously notified the seller of the defect, may demand a purchase price reduction from the seller. The OZ further stipulates that the buyer has a time limit of one year of giving notice of the defect in which to exercise his/her right to a reduction. The case law, confirmed by the Supreme Court, now interprets the said provision in the manner that the buyer may address his/her request for a purchase price reduction only through a court of law (and thus that only a court of law may reduce the purchase price), within one year of notice of the defect being given.
The implication of the aforesaid is that it is not sufficient for a buyer to merely demand a purchase price reduction from the seller within one year of notice of the defect being given by way of a declaration, and where the seller fails to do so, the buyer may further demand a purchase price reduction through judicial channels, within general limitation periods. Under current case law, the buyer must, within one year of giving notice of the defect, file a claim before a court of law, otherwise the right to demand the reduction of the purchase price is lost. In this respect, it is important that the claim is worded correctly, otherwise the action will be rejected.
Legal literature (in part) emphasizes the strictness and inadequacy of the said approach which does not fit the demand of today’s business environment, compared to both foreign as well as national legislation. Namely, in other jurisdictions a buyer has more time to exercise his/her rights, whereas judicial channels aside, there are other options open to buyers for demanding a purchase price reduction. Similarly, under Slovenian legislation, in case of a breach of agreement, it is possible to withdraw from an agreement only by a declaration, thus without judicial intervention. Compulsory judicial enforcement of a purchase price reduction claim that carries a very short preclusion period, only serves to further aggravate the position of the buyer.
