Signed judgment

1. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the documentary evidence and the applicable provisions of Danish law, the Court gives judgment as follows. Findings 2. The Court finds that Ms Birk clearly communicated, before purchasing the dishwasher, her wish to preserve the existing visible kitchen frontage. She specifically asked the defendant to verify the dishwasher’s suitability before ordering and relied on the defendant’s professional measurements and recommendation. 3. Under section 75b(1)(2) of the Danish Sale of Goods Act (Købeloven), goods must be suitable for a particular purpose communicated by the consumer before the agreement is concluded and accepted by the seller. The defendant’s undertaking to measure the opening and select a suitable appliance constituted acceptance of the claimant’s particular installation requirements. 4. Although the dishwasher’s physical dimensions matched the recorded opening, that does not establish its suitability for the agreed installation. The appliance was never fitted, and the defendant acknowledged that its assessment did not include the necessary plinth-clearance checks. 5. Section 76 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that a lack of conformity may arise where a seller fails to disclose relevant circumstances that the seller knew or ought to have known and that were material to the consumer’s assessment of the goods. The potential need to modify the kitchen frontage was material information that should have been investigated and communicated before the purchase was concluded. Reasons 6. The Court has considered the defendant’s offer to complete the installation. Under section 78a(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, remedies must be provided free of charge, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. 7. The defendant has not demonstrated that its proposed installation would satisfy the claimant’s requirements. An offer dependent on an unapproved modification does not constitute an adequate remedy in these circumstances. 8. Having regard to section 78b(1)(3) and (4), the Court finds that the nonconformity is sufficiently serious to justify rescission. The evidence does not establish that an adequate remedy would be provided within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience. Under section 78b(2), the seller bears the burden of proving that a lack of conformity is insignificant. The defendant has not discharged that burden. 9. The claimant submitted her complaint promptly and therefore satisfied the notification requirement under section 81 of the Sale of Goods Act. 10. The purchase, measurement and installation formed part of an integrated contractual arrangement intended to provide a properly fitted replacement dishwasher. The installation was not completed, and the measurement service failed to establish a solution that met the agreed purpose. On the contractual evidence, neither associated charge should be retained following termination of the arrangement. Order 11. The claimant’s claim is upheld in full. The purchase agreement is rescinded. 12. The defendant shall reimburse the claimant DKK 6,800, comprising DKK 5,700 for the dishwasher, DKK 850 for installation and DKK 250 for measurement. 13. Pursuant to section 78c(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, the dishwasher shall be returned at the defendant’s expense. The defendant shall arrange collection within 14 days, and the claimant shall make the dishwasher reasonably available for collection. 14. In accordance with section 78c(3), reimbursement shall take place upon the defendant’s receipt of the returned dishwasher. 15. Judgment is entered in favour of the claimant in the amount of DKK 6,800, with collection at the defendant’s expense. 16. The Court observes that when a consumer pays for professional measurements and relies on the seller’s expertise to select an appropriate appliance, the consumer is entitled to expect that the seller has reasonably assessed the requirements communicated to it. Compliance cannot be established merely by showing that the appliance’s dimensions match an opening where the agreed purpose was a completed installation preserving the existing kitchen frontage. The Court recognises the defendant’s willingness to investigate alternative solutions, but that willingness does not alter the evidence of nonconformity or provide sufficient grounds to deny the claimant relief. 17. These proceedings are concluded.